Application of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Gynaecologic Disorders: A Scoping Review
Willison N., Behnia-Willison F., Aryan P., Padhani ZA., Mirzaei Damabi N., Nguyen T.
Systematic Review, published in J Clin Med (2025) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Systematic Review
- Journal
- J Clin Med (2025)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 40869658
- PMCID
- PMC12387537
- DOI
- 10.3390/jcm14165832
- Citations
- 2
Abstract (original English)
Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy is a non-invasive, autologous treatment with regenerative potential in gynaecology beyond fertility applications. This review evaluates PRP in non-fertility-related gynaecological conditions affecting women's quality of life (QoL). Methods: Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we searched Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL, and MEDLINE for studies on PRP in conditions such as vulvar lichen sclerosus (VLS), vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA), sexual dysfunction (SD), stress urinary incontinence (SUI), and interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS). Of 3660 records screened, 43 studies (randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental, cohort, and case series) were included. Results: PRP improved symptoms and QoL in several conditions, particularly VLS and SD, and was generally well tolerated with minor adverse effects (e.g., injection-site pain, transient discomfort). Evidence for abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) and pelvic organ prolapse (POP) was inconclusive. Considerable heterogeneity in preparation protocols and outcome measures limited cross-study comparison. Conclusions: PRP shows promise as a minimally invasive therapy for certain gynaecological conditions. Standardisation of preparation and administration, along with large-scale RCTs, is needed to determine long-term efficacy and safety.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
Evidence level
Relatively higher-quality human studies compared with other topics in this database, e.g. multiple RCTs or systematic reviews. This does not mean it is standard or approved care.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.