ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Addressing Heterogeneity in Equine PRP Therapies: A Scoping Review of Methods, Evidence, and Commercial Validation.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Molecular and Regenerative Effects of Platelet-Rich Plasma and Related Hemocomponents in Animal Models of Liver Injury-A Systematic Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Pooled it
- Influence of Manual Double-Spin Preparation Protocols on the Cellular and Growth Factor Composition of Equine Platelet-Rich Plasma.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
(1) Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has become a cornerstone of equine regenerative medicine, yet significant methodological variability compromises reproducibility and clinical comparability. (2) Methods: This scoping review systematically mapped and analyzed peer-reviewed studies describing equine PRP preparation methods and commercial systems (2000-2024) following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. (3) Results: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 317 horses and both manual and commercial devices. Double-spin manual protocols predominated, though centrifugation parameters, anticoagulants, and activation strategies varied widely. Methodological quality, assessed using an adapted nine-criterion framework, revealed that only 29% of studies achieved comprehensive reporting, particularly lacking platelet-yield and activation details. An additional multilingual web search identified 24 veterinary PRP kits, of which only 10 had published validation in horses, exposing a pronounced gap between marketing claims and scientific evidence. (4) Conclusions: These discrepancies underscore the need for standardized reporting, transparent characterization, and independent evaluation of PRP systems. The proposed framework aims to guide future research toward reproducible, evidence-based practices that enhance therapeutic reliability and clinical translation in equine regenerative medicine.
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.