SynthesisBlood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue2024
Platelet rich plasma for facial rejuvenation: an overview of systematic reviews.
Synthesis in Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Trends in Facelift and Necklift Procedures.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) as a non-surgical therapy for facial rejuvenation is increasingly adopted. This article aims to review the literature and critically appraise the available evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of PRP for facial rejuvenation. MATERIAL AND
methodsAn overview of systematic reviews (SRs) of PRP use for facial rejuvenation. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 checklist; quality of the evidence from the trials included in each SR was appraised following the GRADE approach.
resultsThirteen SRs published between 2015 and 2023, reporting data from 114 overlapping reports, based on 28 individual primary studies (18 uncontrolled reports), were included in this umbrella review. Eight primary studies evaluated PRP in combination with other treatments (laser therapy, fat grafting, hyaluronic acid, basic fibroblast growth factor), and 20 PRP monotherapy. Most of the included primary studies were uncontrolled, and meta-analysis for outcomes related to facial rejuvenation was conducted in only 1 of the 13 SRs, showing that patients treated with PRP as an adjunct treatment have increased satisfaction over controls without PRP (mean difference, 0.63; 95% confidence intervals (CIs) 0.25/1; p=0-001; low certainty of evidence due to risk of bias (ROB) and inconsistency). No other quantitative data were available from the SRs, although 4 SRs concluded in a descriptive way reveal that PRP combined with laser therapy increased subject satisfaction and skin elasticity, and decreased the erythema index (very low certainty of evidence due to imprecision, unsystematic clinical observations, and ROB). The occurrence of adverse events was a predefined outcome in only 2 SRs (15%). Almost all the SRs demonstrated poor compliance with the AMSTAR 2 items, and the confidence in the results of SRs was graded as low or critically low in 12 of the 13 SRs. DISCUSSION: The available evidence is insufficient to suggest firm conclusions about the use of PRP, alone or in combination with other treatments, in promoting facial rejuvenation.
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.