SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

A commentary on the need for minimum information for studies evaluating biologics in plastic surgery.

Whitford T., Toal C., Lodescar RJ.

Systematic Review on Chronic Wound, Facial Rejuvenation, published in J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2026) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

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 Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg (2026)
Country
Netherlands
Reported sample size
—
PMID
42054980
DOI
10.1016/j.bjps.2026.04.013

Abstract (original English)

Biologics including platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) are increasingly utilized in plastic surgery for applications ranging from facial rejuvenation to wound healing. However, the literature currently contains heterogeneous reporting that undermines evidence synthesis and clinical application. A recent systematic review found that the vast majority of authors failed to disclose final platelet concentrations, concluding that systematic evaluation is limited by high heterogeneity in preparation protocols. 3 Orthopedic surgery addressed this problem in 2017 by developing the Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO) guidelines through Delphi consensus, establishing 23 mandatory reporting items across 12 categories. However, voluntary MIBO adoption has been poor, with no improvement in adherence before versus after guideline publication. 5 Plastic surgery has reporting guidelines for stromal vascular fraction (CLINIC-STRA-SVF), leaving PRP and MSCs without standardized reporting requirements. This commentary proposes that plastic surgery journals mandate MIBO checklist completion for all PRP and MSC studies as a condition of publication. Standardized reporting would enable meaningful meta-analyses, allow clinicians to identify optimal protocols, and demonstrate professional commitment to scientific rigor.

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 evidence
HumansPlatelet-Rich PlasmaSurgery, PlasticBiological ProductsPlastic Surgery ProceduresMesenchymal Stem Cell Transplantation
Face & SkinChronic WoundFacial Rejuvenation
View on PubMedDOI

Related research