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.

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)

Aims and objectives 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. Methods 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. Results A total of 20 clinical studies involving 724 patients were included, encompassin

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.