ReviewDermatology and therapy2025
Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Management of Alopecia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Evidence.
Review in Dermatology and therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Baseline Neutrophil-to-Lymphocyte Ratio Stratifies Early Trichoscopic Response to Platelet-Rich Plasma-Based Regimens in Non-Scarring Alopecia: A Real-World Cohort with Internal Validation Using an Interpretable Neural Network.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Advances in Medicalized Hair Loss Solutions: A Review of Current Clinical Practices and Regenerative Medicine-Based Protocols with Focus on Off-Label Injectable Treatments.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- From a stem-cell-centered to a niche-centered view: the core role of collagen networks in hair loss and hair follicle miniaturization.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Adjunctive regenerative therapies in hair transplantation: a comprehensive review of platelet-rich plasma, exosomes, and emerging methods.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Platelet-rich therapies in cutaneous and mucocutaneous disorders characterized by inflammatory tissue responses: mechanistic insights and clinical evidence.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAlopecia is a common hair loss condition with different treatment modalities. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), a minimally invasive autologous therapy, has emerged as a topic of interest, but its effectiveness remains debated. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the safety and efficacy of PRP for alopecia.
methodsA comprehensive search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus conducted on 27 May 2025 with monthly updates until July 10 2025 identified 43 randomized controlled trials (1877 participants) assessing PRP in alopecia. Primary outcomes were changes in hair density and thickness. Secondary outcomes included side effects, hair loss, clinical improvement, patient satisfaction, recurrence, and other hair follicle metrics.
resultsActivated PRP was effective in increasing hair density and minimizing recurrence compared with placebo, whereas non-activated PRP was associated with a higher frequency of adverse effects. PRP also improved clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Moreover, hair loss decreased with PRP therapy regardless of activation status or control type. However, PRP did not significantly affect hair thickness. However, PRP did not significantly affect hair thickness. DISCUSSION: These findings support PRP as a relatively safe and effective therapy for alopecia, particularly in increasing hair density and reducing hair loss. Patient satisfaction was generally favorable. The clinical efficacy of PRP was often comparable or superior to conventional treatments. Activation status appears to influence response, highlighting the importance of preparation protocols. However, as a result of heterogeneity in study designs and incomplete reporting of the effect of specific PRP composition-related covariates on treatment efficacy or patient safety outcomes, no significant variation in overall effect modification was attributable to alopecia subtype.
conclusionsModerate evidence highlights that PRP is safe and effective in improving hair density, reducing hair loss, and enhancing clinical outcomes and satisfaction. No significant benefits were demonstrated for hair thickness or other follicle-related parameters as derived from PRP therapy. Further high-quality, standardized trials are needed to confirm these findings and clarify the clinical significance of PRP formulations.
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.