Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2024
Comparison of platelet-rich plasma efficacy with and without photoactivation in melasma: A randomized double-blind study.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photothermal-Activated Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Conventional Platelet-Rich Plasma for Melasma: A Split-Face, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine · 2026Trial
- Comparison of platelet-rich plasma efficacy with and without photoactivation in melasma: A randomized double-blind study.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2024Trial
- Photothermal preconditioning of platelet-rich plasma: An emerging regenerative strategy.Regenerative therapy · 2026Article
- Clinical Analysis of PRP Combined With Hyaluronic Acid Mesotherapy in the Treatment of Facial Chloasma.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhotoactivation has been suggested to enhance the efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in conditions other than dermatological diseases.
aimsTo evaluate the efficacy of photoactivated PRP (P-PRP) treatment for melasma by comparing it with non-photoactivated, classical PRP (C-PRP).
methodsThe study consisted of 38 female patients diagnosed with melasma between April 2022 and May 2023. The patients were randomized into the P-PRP and C-PRP groups. Three sessions of P-PRP or C-PRP were applied to the patients at 2-week intervals. The Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) and Melasma Quality of Life Index (MELASQoL) scores were compared before and 2 weeks after treatment.
resultsThe median age was 38 years, and the median disease duration was 60 months. Clinically, 94.7% of the cases were centrofacial and 5.3% were malar. According to Wood's lamp examination, 55.3% of the cases were epidermal, 13.2% were dermal, and 31.6% were mixed-type. The median pre- and post-treatment scores were 14.5 and 9, respectively, for MASI and 36.5 and 17, respectively, for MELASQoL. The post-treatment MASI and MELASQoL scores of both groups significantly decreased (p < 0.001 for both). However, the intergroup difference was not significant. When all patients were evaluated together a moderate, positive, and significant relationship was detected between PRP and the pre- and post-treatment MASI and MELASQoL scores (r = 0.494 and p = 0.002). No side effects associated with PRP were observed.
conclusionPRP is an effective and safe treatment method for melasma. Further studies are needed to evaluate the contribution of photoactivation to PRP treatment in melasma.
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.