SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Therapeutic efficacy and safety of injectable platelet-rich plasma in women with stress urinary incontinence: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Stress urinary incontinence (SUI) is a prevalent pelvic floor disorder with significant effects on women's quality of life. While surgical and non-surgical interventions exist, limitations underscore the need for alternative therapies. Injectable platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a regenerative approach targeting tissue restoration. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of PRP injections for female SUI. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Library up to April 2025 identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-experimental studies assessing PRP for SUI. The review protocol was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251118485). Eligible studies reported outcomes on symptom severity, urodynamic parameters, quality of life, or adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2.0 for RCTs and the NHLBI tool for before-and-after studies. Pooled effect sizes were calculated using random- or fixed-effects models as appropriate. Results: Eight studies (three RCTs and five quasi-experimental; Conclusion: Injectable PRP demonstrates promising short-term efficacy in reducing symptoms, improving urodynamic function, and enhancing quality of life in women with SUI, with a favorable safety profile. Larger, standardized RCTs with longer follow-up are needed to validate durability and define its role relative to established therapies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251118485, CRD420251118485.
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.