Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceMeta-analysisEurope PMCOpen access

Meta-analysis on the Efficacy of Platelet-rich Plasma in Patients with Androgenetic Alopecia

Olisova O., Potapova M., Suvorov A., Koriakin D., Lepekhova A.

Meta-analysis on Hair Loss, published in Int J Trichology (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceEvidence level of this study

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
Read the A–D evidence level guide

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
Meta-analysis
Journal
Int J Trichology (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38765721
PMCID
PMC11098138
DOI
10.4103/ijt.ijt_90_22
Citations
3

Abstract (original English)

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous platelet concentrate in plasma enriched with growth factors that may stimulate tissue regeneration, collagen formation, re-epithelization, and angiogenesis. PRP is widely used as an androgenetic alopecia treatment option. The present work aims to test the efficacy of various PRP methods, including those with single-spin and double-spin centrifugation. We performed a review of articles published from 2011 to 2021 in PubMed and ScienceDirect. The studies vary in the preparation procedure, dose, number, intervals between the procedures, and the injection technique because of low standardization of PRP preparation, complicating the evaluation of the clinical efficacy of the method. Based on the conducted statistical analysis, we came to the conclusion that the double-spin PRP preparation method was superior to the single-spin technique, which may be taken into account for AGA management.

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

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research