The use of platelet-rich plasma in wound healing and vitiligo: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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)

Objective To critically assess the effect and safety of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in chronic wounds and vitiligo. Methods A systematic literature searching was performed. Results were expressed as weight mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Pooled estimates were performed using a fixed-effects model or random-effects model, depending on the heterogeneity among studies. Results A total of 27 studies were included in this meta-analysis. In patients with chronic diabetic ulcers, PRP significantly increased proportion of complete wound healing, percentage of wound area healed, and shortened the complete wound healing. In venous ulcers, PRP improved the epithelialized area and percentage of wound area healed. In vitiligo, PRP had better results in degree of improvement and mean repigmentation than controls. Regarding the safety profile, PRP did not increase the risk of infection in patients with chronic diabetic ulcers. Meta-regression revealed that source of PRP and preparation method of PRP significantly affected the proportion of complete wound healing, whereas age, gender, country, duration of wound, and wound size had no impact on this outcome. Conclusion PRP is effective and safe, and can be used as a potential therapeutic adjunct or alternative treatment in chronic wounds of multiple etiologies and vitiligo.

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.