“…Although the forest plot in Fig 3 showed two studies with not significant negative ES [ 51 , 53 ], two studies with null ES [ 30 , 46 ], seven studies with not significant positive ES [ 42 , 44 , 45 , 50 , 52 , 56 , 58 ] and four studies with significant positive ES [ 43 , 54 , 55 , 57 ]: the exclusion of each of the studies, in the sensitivity analysis, would have no relevant effect on the overall results of the meta-analysis supporting the efficacy of PRP for primary outcome. ( Fig 4 )…”