Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36643192›Full record

ArticleSkin appendage disorders2023

Activated Platelet Rich Plasma versus Non-Activated Platelet Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Alopecia Areata.

Ahmed Hassan Nouh, Ahmed Mohamed Abdelaal, Ali El Sayed Fathy

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Skin appendage disorders, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Androgenetic alopecia.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ahmed Hassan NouhDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology, Faculty of Medicine of Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed Mohamed AbdelaalDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology, Faculty of Medicine of Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ali El Sayed FathyDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Andrology, Faculty of Medicine of Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Al-Azhar University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Alopecia areata is a common recurrent T cell-mediated autoimmune-induced non-scarring hair loss with not fully understood pathogenesis. It affects nearly 2% of the general population during lifetime. The course of the disease is unpredictable, and currently no treatment is available for complete cure or prevention. Platelet rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood-derived product, which has widely spread in the last decades for treatment of different dermatological conditions including hair disorders. Methods: The aim of this work was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of activated PRP in comparison to non-activated PRP in the treatment of alopecia areata. This study was conducted on two groups of 20 subjects each who received 4 treatments of intradermal injection of activated and non-activated PRP. Results and Conclusion: Data obtained in our research confirm that PRP is safe, effective, and well tolerated by patients as a treatment modality for alopecia areata. Besides, such a method is cost-effective as there is no need for any expensive tools for preparation and it can be done in outpatient clinics. Also, activation of PRP prior to injection is not mandatory as there was no statistically significant difference between both groups.

Indexed as

Activated platelet rich plasmaAlopecia areataHair lossNon-activated platelet rich plasmaNon-scarring alopecia

Identifiers

PMID36643192
PMCPMC9833001
OpenAlexW4316678228

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.