SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
The Efficacy and Safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Melasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has emerged as a potential treatment for melasma, though its efficacy remains incompletely evaluated. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction, and safety of PRP for melasma compared to alternative treatments.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 clinical studies. Outcomes included clinical improvement (melasma severity scores), patient satisfaction, and adverse events, analyzed using standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools.
resultsPRP therapy showed no significant difference in improving the severity of melasma compared to the control therapy. Subgroup analysis indicated that the efficacy of PRP when combined with other therapies was also not significantly different. In terms of treatment duration, significant differences in treatment effects were observed as time increased. In terms of patient satisfaction and adverse events, there were no significant differences between PRP and other treatments. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the overall pooled estimate was sensitive to a single small-scale study, indicating limited statistical robustness of the current results.
conclusionWhile PRP shows clinical potential in melasma management, this meta-analysis indicates no significant overall advantage over alternative therapies. Given the limited statistical robustness and high clinical heterogeneity observed, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Future large-scale, standardized, and multi-center clinical trials are essential to provide more definitive evidence regarding its efficacy, safety, and long-term clinical practicability. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42228070What 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.