Platelet rich plasma for facial rejuvenation: an overview of systematic reviews

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

Abstract (original English)

Background Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a non-surgical therapy for facial rejuvenation is increasingly adopted. This article aims to review the literature and critically appraise the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of PRP for facial rejuvenation. Material and methods An overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of PRP use for facial rejuvenation. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach. Results Thirteen SRs published between 2015 and 2023, reporting data from 114 overlapping reports, based on 28 individual primary studies (18 uncontrolled reports), were included in this umbrella review. Eight primary studies evaluated PRP in combination with other treatments (laser therapy, fat grafting, hyaluronic acid, basic fibroblast growth factor), and 20 PRP monotherapy. Most of the included primary studies were uncontrolled, and meta-analysis for outcomes related to facial rejuvenation was conducted in only 1 of the 13 SRs, showing that patients treated with PRP as an adjunct treatment have increased satisfaction over controls without PRP (mean difference, 0.63; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.25/1; p=0-001; low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias (ROB) and inconsistency). No other quantitative data were available from the

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.

Browse all related research

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