ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026
Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Treating Skin Aging.
Review in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP), enriched with growth factors, shows promise in skin rejuvenation, yet lacks robust evidence. Objectives: This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the clinical efficacy of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in the treatment of skin aging. Methods: Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to December 1, 2024, were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Wanfang Database, VIP and Cochrane Library. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by two researchers. RevMan 5.4 and STATA software were used to calculate overall effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and risk of bias was assessed. Results: A total of 9 RCTs involving 358 patients were included. The meta-analysis showed that PRP interventions significantly improved subjective patient satisfaction, with a risk ratio (RR) of 1.34 (95% CI: 1.07-1.67, Conclusions: PRP, as a minimally invasive and low-risk treatment, has demonstrated efficacy in alleviating skin aging and improving skin texture. It shows promising clinical application potential. Level of Evidence 2 Therapeutic:
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.