Trial reportBMC women's health2025
Value of injection of plasma-rich platelets in the vaginal mucosa in cases with vulvovaginal atrophy: a prospective double-blinded randomized controlled study.
Trial report in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03898401 (Effect of PRP Injection in Releiving of Symptoms of Senile Vaginitis), which is not on this 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.
Effect of PRP Injection in Releiving of Symptoms of Senile Vaginitis
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Modern methods of treating vaginal dryness and atrophy.Przeglad menopauzalny = Menopause review · 2026Review
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
objectivesThe use of Plasma-Rich Platelets (PRP) in the vaginal mucosa for vulvovaginal atrophy (VVA) symptom relief is still being studied. This trial aimed to assess the efficacy of PRP injections in alleviating VVA symptoms.
methodsA prospective randomized controlled trial was conducted at Ain Shams University Hospital, involving 60 postmenopausal women experiencing vaginal atrophy from August 2019 to May 2021. Thirty participants received intramucosal PRP injections, while the other 30 received saline as a placebo. Clinical evaluations occurred after 4 months using the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) as the primary outcome measure, alongside assessments of quality of life domains using the 36-item short-form survey (SF-36).The independent t-test and paired t-test were utilized for comparisons.
resultsAt baseline, both groups exhibited impaired FSFI scores (9.2 ± 4.2 vs. 9.8 ± 4.3, P > 0.05). After four months of treatment, the FSFI scores significantly improved in the PRP group (19.0 ± 4.5 vs. 9.7 ± 4.3, P < 0.001). Specific domain analysis revealed no significant differences before treatment (P > 0.05), but the PRP group showed significant improvements in lubrication (2.26 ± 0.99 vs. 1.15 ± 0.81, P = 0.02), satisfaction (5.27 ± 0.63 vs. 1.31 ± 0.78, P < 0.001), and pain (5.18 ± 0.59 vs. 2.51 ± 1.63, P < 0.001). No differences were seen in desire, arousal, and orgasm (P > 0.05). The PRP group also demonstrated notable improvements in role limitations due to physical health (52.5 ± 10.1 vs. 25.8 ± 12.3, P < 0.001), emotional problems (56.6 ± 15.5 vs. 24.4 ± 17.3, P < 0.001), and energy/fatigue (56.6 ± 15.5 vs. 24.4 ± 17.3, P < 0.001), among others, all significant at P < 0.001.
conclusionsPRP injections show promise for treating postmenopausal VVA but require further larger RCT studies before becoming a standard treatment.
trial registrationThe study was prospectively registered in the clinical trials registry (NCT03898401) on 19.3.2019, https//clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03898401.
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.