Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 282

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

DEPA classification: a proposal for standardising PRP use and a retrospective application of available devices

Open access
Magalon, J, Chateau, A L, Bertrand, B, Louis, M L, Silvestre, A, Giraudo, L, Veran, J, Sabatier, F·2016·BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine

Abstract

Background/aim: Significant biological differences in platelet-rich plasma (PRP) preparations have been highlighted and could explain the large variability in the clinical benefit of PRP reported in the literature. The scientific community now recommends the use of classification for PRP injection; however, these classifications are focused on platelet and leucocyte concentrations. This presents the disadvantages of (1) not taking into account the final volume of the preparation; (2) omitting the presence of red blood cells in PRP and (3) not assessing the efficiency of production. Methods: On the basis of standards classically used in the Cell Therapy field, we propose the DEPA (Dose of injected platelets, Efficiency of production, Purity of the PRP, Activation of the PRP) classification to extend the characterisation of the injected PRP preparation. We retrospectively applied this classification on 20 PRP preparations for which biological characteristics were available in the literature. Results: Dose of injected platelets varies from 0.21 to 5.43 billion, corresponding to a 25-fold increase. Only a Magellan device was able to obtain an A score for this parameter. Assessments of the efficiency of production reveal that no device is able to recover more than 90% of platelets from the blood. Purity of the preparation reveals that a majority of the preparations are contaminated by red blood cells as only three devices reach an A score for this parameter, corresponding to a percentage of platelets compared with red blood cells and leucocytes over 90%. Conclusions: These findings should provide significant help to clinicians in selecting a system that meets their specific needs for a given indication.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000060

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Magalon, J., Chateau, A. L., Bertrand, B., Louis, M. L., Silvestre, A., Giraudo, L., Veran, J., & Sabatier, F.
Venue
BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-02
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
e000060
ISSN
2055-7647 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2309202352
Cited by
282
References
0
FWCI
19.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: DEPA classification: a proposal for standardising PRP use and a retrospective application of available devices. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000060
The paper
Magalon, J., Chateau, A. L., Bertrand, B., Louis, M. L., Silvestre, A., Giraudo, L., Veran, J., & Sabatier, F. (2016). DEPA classification: a proposal for standardising PRP use and a retrospective application of available devices. BMJ Open Sport & Exercise Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjsem-2015-000060

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.