Trial reportPlastic and reconstructive surgery2024
A Pilot, Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Study Evaluating the Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma for Hand Skin Rejuvenation.
Trial report in Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Treating Skin Aging.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Review
- Study on an Injectable Chitosan-Lignin/Poloxamer Hydrogel Loaded with Platelet-Rich Plasma for Intrauterine Adhesion Treatment.Polymers · 2025Article
- An Academic Dermatology Center's Structured Platelet-rich Plasma Approach to Patients with Androgenetic Alopecia.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe presence of various growth factors in platelets makes platelet-rich plasma (PRP) a powerful tool in the stimulation of collagen regeneration in aging skin. The main objective of this study was to determine efficacy and safety of PRP compared with saline solution in women with aging skin of the hands.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized clinical trial, 18 women with hand aging received PRP injections every 4 weeks into the unilateral dorsal hand for 12 weeks total; with saline injections into the contralateral hand in a randomized, controlled, single-blind fashion. Physician assessment, photographs, and quality-of-life questionnaires were used for assessment at baseline and at 12-week and 24-week follow-up.
resultsThe majority of patients reported pain and discomfort along with a burning/stinging sensation in both PRP- and saline-treated hands, with no significant differences noted in any patient outcome measures between the 2 treatments (all P ≥ 0.25). No differences were reliably detected between the treatment hands by a blinded investigator comparing before-and-after clinical photographs of the hands.
conclusionsThree injections of PRP spaced 4 weeks apart did not appear to be effective for treatment of aging skin of the hands in women, with no noted difference as compared with baseline, or saline injection. Although age older than 45 years may be a factor accounting for nonresponse (ie, subtle skin changes are difficult to appreciate, and possible limited platelet regenerative capacity in advanced age), it appears that PRP is not a reliable cosmetic option for management of hand aging. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, II.
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.