Trial reportPhotodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine2026
Photothermal-Activated Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Conventional Platelet-Rich Plasma for Melasma: A Split-Face, Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Photodermatology, photoimmunology & photomedicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMelasma is a common acquired pigmentary disorder that predominantly affects women with darker skin types and substantially impairs quality of life. Current treatments are limited by variable efficacy, adverse effects, and frequent recurrence. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has emerged as a potential regenerative treatment through growth-factor-mediated modulation of melanogenesis. Photothermal activation, which combines photobiomodulation with controlled hypothermic conditioning, has been hypothesized to promote a more sustained growth-factor release than conventional PRP. This study compared the efficacy and safety of photothermal-activated PRP (PT-PRP) and conventional PRP (C-PRP) for melasma treatment.
methodsThis split-face, double-blind, randomized controlled trial included 26 women with epidermal or mixed-type melasma. Each participant received three monthly sessions of intradermal PRP, with PT-PRP and C-PRP injected into opposite facial sides. Outcomes were assessed at weeks 0, 4, 8, and 12 using the modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI), Mexameter melanin and erythema indices, patient satisfaction, overall improvement, and adverse events.
resultsBoth treatments significantly reduced mMASI by week 12, with no significant between-group differences at any time point. C-PRP showed significant mMASI improvement from week 4, whereas PT-PRP reached significance from week 8. For the melanin index, PT-PRP produced a significant within-group reduction at week 12, while C-PRP did not. At week 12, PT-PRP showed a significantly lower melanin index than C-PRP. Mild injection-site bruising was the only adverse event.
conclusionPT-PRP and C-PRP produced comparable clinical improvement, but PT-PRP achieved greater objective melanin reduction at week 12. PT-PRP may represent a safe alternative treatment for melasma.
trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry: TCTR20260318004.
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.