ReviewCureus2024
Efficacy and Safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Melasma: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Efficacy and Safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Melasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Post-inflammatory Hyperpigmentation in Skin of Color: Emerging Therapies and Treatment Algorithms.Cureus · 2026Review
- Review
- Efficacy and Safety of Different Treatments for Melasma: Network Meta-Analysis of Updated Data.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Melasma is a prevalent dermatological challenge with limited therapeutic interventions. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has been increasingly explored for its potential benefits in various dermatological conditions. This study aimed to systematically review the efficacy and safety of PRP in the treatment of melasma. A comprehensive search in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines was executed in January 2024 using PubMed, focusing on studies investigating the efficacy and safety of PRP in melasma. Criteria for inclusion were clinical trials and controlled studies examining PRP's role in melasma treatment, while exclusions covered reviews, non-English articles, and studies older than 10 years, among others. Eight studies were included, with the majority targeting female participants. The research displayed consistent positive outcomes, whether PRP was used alone or synergistically with treatments like hydroquinone and tranexamic acid. However, positive studies with the combination of PRP and other drugs will not provide the actual safety and efficacy data of PRP. The combined treatment approaches often showed enhanced results. Satisfaction rates among patients and reductions in the melasma area and severity index (MASI) scores were common findings across the studies, emphasizing the potential of PRP in melasma management. In conclusion, PRP emerges as a promising therapeutic intervention for melasma. Whether as a standalone treatment or combined with established methods, PRP presents significant potential in melasma's clinical management, warranting further expansive trials to substantiate its long-term efficacy and safety.
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.