SVF
Level A· Stronger Clinical EvidenceSystematic Review

A systematic review of clinical evidence on the efficacy and safety of conditioned media, platelet-rich fibrin, stromal vascular fraction, extracellular vesicles, and stem cells in androgenetic alopecia.

Behrangi E., Amiri S., Zeinali R., Goodarzi A., Roohaninasab M., Khosravi M.

Systematic Review with a reported sample of 724 on Hair Loss, Hair Regeneration, published in Stem Cell Res Ther (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
Stem Cell Res Ther (2026)
Country
England
Reported sample size
724
PMID
41987228
DOI
10.1186/s13287-026-05016-2

Abstract (original English)

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a common progressive hair loss disorder caused by follicular miniaturization and shortened anagen phases. Conventional treatments mainly target androgen pathways but often yield unsatisfactory results. Regenerative medicine has emerged as a novel therapeutic approach aiming to restore follicular function through biologically active cell-based or cell-free therapies. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of five major regenerative modalities in AGA-conditioned media (CM), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), stromal vascular fraction (SVF), extracellular vesicles (EV), and stem cells (SCs)-while comparing their outcomes and identifying the most frequently investigated methods, highest response rates, and areas requiring further research. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published up to September 1, 2025. Eligible studies included patients diagnosed with AGA who received regenerative medicine interventions and reported measurable clinical outcomes. Data were extracted on participant characteristics, intervention type, efficacy outcomes, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB-2 for RCTs and ROB-I for non-randomized studies. A total of 20 clinical studies involving 724 patients were included, encompassing randomized controlled trials, pros

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
HumansAlopeciaCulture Media, ConditionedExtracellular VesiclesPlatelet-Rich FibrinRegenerative MedicineStem Cells
Hair & ScalpHair LossHair Regeneration
View on PubMedDOI

Related research