ReviewDer Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete2022
[Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA): a review of the current literature].
Review in Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlatelet rich plasma (PRP) injections have been reported to be an effective and low side effect treatment for androgenetic alopecia (AGA). However, robust data concerning this therapy are lacking.
aimWe address some potentially critical aspects of PRP treatment and give some reasons why study results may differ. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn the following review we give a brief overview of the current literature and compare the results of the various trials.
resultsIn recent years, several clinical trials have been published that have revealed different but rather positive results, which offers hope to those affected by AGA and to physicians as well. However, the results were observed in methodologically weak trials and data from randomized controlled trials are lacking. Differences in trial designs have made it difficult to draw concrete conclusions about its clinical efficacy. Even in the studies where no hair-growth-promoting effect could be observed, the majority of subjects were at least satisfied with the result. The combination of several treatment approaches seems to lead to optimal improvement in hair growth.
conclusionThere are many factors that could have influenced the results of the different studies. The results were observed in methodologically weak studies, giving reason for caution when drawing conclusions. Nevertheless, the majority of the subjects were at least satisfied with the result. Given the current low level of evidence, PRP treatments need to be further investigated in larger studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.