Trial reportAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Platelet-Poor Plasma for Treating Facial Photoaging: a Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Splitting Face Study.
Trial report in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Role of Platelet Concentrates and Growth Factors in Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review with Case Series.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Autologous fibroblast therapy for facial rejuvenation: A randomized open-label controlled study.JPRAS open · 2026Article
- Anticoagulant-free preparation of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) / fluid platelet-rich fibrin (f-PRF): a pre-clinical comparative performance study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Noninvasive Assessment Methods for the Therapeutic Effect Following Facial Rejuvenation.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
- Review
- Review
- The Application of Blood Products in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAs the demand for non-invasive esthetic procedures to maintain a youthful appearance increases, there has been growing interest in the use of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and platelet-poor plasma (PPP) for the treatment of facial aging. However, there are few studies directly comparing the efficacy of PRP and PPP for facial rejuvenation.
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the efficacy of PRP and PPP for facial rejuvenation.
methodsThis single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from January 1, 2022, to July 31, 2022, and included ten participants who completed the follow-up. The participants were randomly assigned to receive 2.5-mL injections of PRP and PPP on different sides of the face in three sessions with 1-month intervals. The outcome was primarily determined by blinded photographic assessments and secondly by scores of the VISIA® system during the follow-up.
resultsBoth PRP and PPP treatments resulted in significant improvement in the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scales and Modified Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale for periocular Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation wrinkles, with no significant difference between the two groups. However, no improvement was observed in the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scales for nasolabial folds in either the PRP- or PPP-treated groups. Furthermore, no severe adverse events were reported.
conclusionsBoth PRP and PPP are effective in treating facial photoaging. PRP exhibited slightly superior efficacy in enhancing overall skin condition, while PPP was slightly more effective in improving shallow wrinkles. This study provides valuable evidence for the use of PRP and PPP in facial rejuvenation procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.