Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is widely used in various medical and surgical specialties for its regenerative properties, including aesthetics (facial rejuvenation, hair restoration, and skin tightening) and orthopedics (treatment of tendinitis and osteoarthritis). However, the inconsistent literature on PRP\'s efficacy and safety leads to critical knowledge gaps. This systematic review evaluates quality control measures in PRP preparation and application and explores the regulatory environment governing its clinical use. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, for studies published from January 2020 to April 2024. The review included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving human participants undergoing PRP treatment for aesthetic or regenerative purposes. Key parameters such as the PRP preparation methods, platelet concentration, and quality control measures were analyzed. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO (ID: CRD42024557669). Results: Out of 75 RCTs involving 5726 patients, the review identified significant variability in PRP preparation methods and application techniques, including differences in centrifugation protocols and platelet concentration levels. A new evidence-based scoring system, the William-Eqram Scoring System for PRP Quality Reporting (WESS-PQR), was proposed to address these inconsistencies. Correlation analysis revealed a strong positive correlation (r = 0.79) between proper temperature control during preparation and PRP efficacy. Initial platelet count assessment showed a moderate positive correlation (r = 0.57) with efficacy. Conclusions: Standardized PRP preparation protocols and robust regulatory frameworks are urgently needed to ensure the safety and efficacy of PRP treatments. The proposed WESS-PQR scoring system can serve as a valuable tool for clinicians and researchers, promoting consistency and reliability in PRP applications.

UNASSIGNED: Meniscus tears are a common cause of knee pain encountered in orthopedics and sports medicine. There are numerous management strategies, from physical therapy and oral medications to surgery. Recent evidence is more favorable for conservative management, as operative treatment has limited clinical benefits and is associated with an accelerated progression toward osteoarthritis. Injections with orthobiologic therapies, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP), are emerging as an alternative therapeutic tool for degenerative tears. This study aims to evaluate the latest evidence regarding the efficacy of PRP injections for the nonoperative management of degenerative meniscal pathology.
UNASSIGNED: Articles were obtained from Embase, PubMed, World of Science, Cochrane, and Galileo databases after searching \"Platelet-rich plasma\" AND \"Meniscus.\" Inclusion criteria consisted of original, human studies evaluating the use of platelet-rich plasma for nonoperative management of meniscus tears.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 384 articles were screened, with ten studies selected for final inclusion. The pooled study population comprised 686 patients, with an average age ranging from 33 to 53 years, and a 38% female population. Three different injection approaches were utilized, categorized as intra-articular alone (IA), intra-meniscal alone (IM), or a combination of both. Most studies demonstrated improved pain and functionality by 3 months that persisted for at least one year. Within the IA and IM groups, the majority of patients were either radiographically stable (30-70%) or demonstrated interval healing (40-60%). Several studies within IM and combined treatment groups evaluated rates and time to arthroscopy, and found lower failure rates and greater arthroscopy-free survival time than control comparison groups.
UNASSIGNED: PRP appears to be a safe and efficacious treatment strategy for degenerative meniscal pathology. However, due to diverse periprocedural techniques, PRP injectate characteristics, and a lack of high-quality studies, additional trials are needed to provide greater a degree of confidence in PRP\'s clinical impact on patients with meniscus tears.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an emerging biological intervention for osteoarthritis (OA), yet the outcomes remain uncertain. The purpose of this study was to review current literature regarding the use of PRP for knee and hip OA.
RESULTS: Recent systematic reviews have found significant clinical improvements in outcomes after the administration of PRP compared to hyaluronic acid (HA) in patients with knee OA. One of these reviews included bone marrow aspirate concentrate (BMAC) as a comparison group and found no significant differences in outcomes between PRP and BMAC. Currently, the literature is lacking on whether leukocyte-rich or leukocyte-poor PRP is superior in patients with knee OA. The literature on PRP for hip OA has not provided consistent results as it has for the knee. Two recent systematic reviews evaluated RCTs for patients undergoing treatment with either PRP or HA for hip OA and found no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups at final follow-up. Current literature regarding the association between OA grade and PRP efficacy has found varying results. The use of PRP injections in the treatment of knee OA appears to be favorable, resulting in clinically comparable or superior outcomes compared to other injection treatments. However, the clinical efficacy of PRP injections in hip OA is far less consistent. Evidence is lacking to suggest that the presence of leukocytes significantly influences clinical outcomes. Further randomized controlled trials on larger cohorts, with longer follow-up, and with comparable formulations are required before recommendations can be made regarding use of PRP for hip OA, the effect of leukocyte concentration, and clinical efficacy based on OA grade.

OBJECTIVE: Interstitial cystitis/bladder pain syndrome (IC/BPS) is a condition characterized by chronic inflammation that affects the bladder. The study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of intravesical platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in patients with IC/BPS.
METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search strategy to involve studies that investigate the efficacy of intravesical PRP injections or instillations over different time intervals. Various outcome measures were assessed, including pain scores, functional outcomes, urodynamic parameters, and surface expressions on the urothelium.
RESULTS: Our search strategy revealed 1,125 studies. After screening, ten articles met the inclusion criteria. Intravesical PRP significantly reduced the visual analog scale (VAS) compared with baseline scores. Several clinical trials reported significant improvements in the global response rate (GRA), O\'Leary-Sant Symptom (OSS) questionnaire, Interstitial Cystitis Symptom Index (ICSI), and Interstitial Cystitis Problem Index (ICPI). Urodynamic parameters such as maximum flow rate (Qmax) and post-voiding residual (PVR) showed significant improvements in some studies.
CONCLUSIONS: The study concluded that intravesical PRP injections could be a promising effective treatment option for IC/BPS patients by their significant ability to reduce pain. However, improvement of urodynamic and functional outcomes is still not clear. Further large comparative trials are still warranted to assess the efficacy of PRP instillation.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to systematically review randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) studying various types of regenerative medicine methods (such as platelet-rich plasma, stromal vascular fraction, cell therapy, conditioned media, etc.) in treating specific dermatologic diseases. Rejuvenation, scarring, wound healing, and other secondary conditions of skin damage were not investigated in this study.
METHODS: Major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, were meticulously searched for RCTs up to January 2024, focusing on regenerative medicine interventions for specific dermatologic disorders (such as androgenetic alopecia, vitiligo, alopecia areata, etc.). Key data extracted encompassed participant characteristics and sample sizes, types of regenerative therapy, treatment efficacy, and adverse events.
RESULTS: In this systematic review, 64 studies involving a total of 2888 patients were examined. Women constituted 44.8% of the study population, while men made up 55.2% of the participants, with an average age of 27.64 years. The most frequently studied skin diseases were androgenetic alopecia (AGA) (45.3%) and vitiligo (31.2%). The most common regenerative methods investigated for these diseases were PRP and the transplantation of autologous epidermal melanocyte/keratinocyte cells, respectively. Studies reported up to 68.4% improvement in AGA and up to 71% improvement in vitiligo. Other diseases included in the review were alopecia areata, melasma, lichen sclerosus et atrophicus (LSA), inflammatory acne vulgaris, chronic telogen effluvium, erosive oral lichen planus, and dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Regenerative medicine was found to be an effective treatment option in all of these studies, along with other methods. The regenerative medicine techniques investigated in this study comprised the transplantation of autologous epidermal melanocyte/keratinocyte cells, isolated melanocyte transplantation, cell transplantation from hair follicle origins, melanocyte-keratinocyte suspension in PRP, conditioned media injection, a combination of PRP and basic fibroblast growth factor, intravenous injection of mesenchymal stem cells, concentrated growth factor, stromal vascular fraction (SVF), a combination of PRP and SVF, and preserving hair grafts in PRP.
CONCLUSIONS: Regenerative medicine holds promise as a treatment for specific dermatologic disorders. To validate our findings, it is recommended to conduct numerous clinical trials focusing on various skin conditions. In our study, we did not explore secondary skin lesions like scars or ulcers. Therefore, assessing the effectiveness of this treatment method for addressing these conditions would necessitate a separate study.

We aimed to determine the efficacy of the various available oral, topical, and procedural treatment options for hair loss in individuals with androgenic alopecia. Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review of the National Library of Medicine was performed. Overall, 141 unique studies met our inclusion criteria. We demonstrate that many over the counter (e.g. topical minoxidil, supplements, low-level light treatment), prescription (e.g. oral minoxidil, finasteride, dutasteride), and procedural (e.g. platelet-rich plasma, fractionated lasers, hair transplantation) treatments successfully promote hair growth, highlighting the superiority of a multifaceted and individualized approach to management.

BACKGROUND: To comprehensively evaluate the reported clinical effectiveness of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in patients with chronic sinusitis undergoing endoscopic sinus surgery (ESS).
METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Five digital online databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar and Cochrane CENTRAL) were searched from inception up to 1st May 2023. Our specific outcomes involved postoperative nasal endoscopy scores measured via Lund-Kennedy score or Meltzer score, olfactory sensation scores and pre-operative anosmia duration. All data were pooled as standardised mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI), using the RevMan software.
RESULTS: Six RCTs were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis, with a total of 169 patients. The risk of bias in the included RCTs was low in three RCTs, some concerns in one RCT and high risk in two RCTs. The overall analysis of the postoperative nasal endoscopy scores showed that the PRP group had lower scores compared to the control group (n = 3 RCTs, SMD = -1.19; 95% CI [-1.94, -0.44], p = .002). There was no significant difference between the PRP and control groups regarding anosmia duration (n = 2 RCTs, SMD = 0.21; 95% CI [-0.17, 0.59], p = 0.28) or olfactory sensation scores, despite the PRP group having higher scores (n = 2 RCTs, SMD = 0.53; 95% CI [-0.32, 1.39], p = 0.22).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the potential advantages of using PRP as an additional treatment for individuals with chronic sinusitis undergoing ESS. The improvements associated with PRP include facilitating wound healing, reducing inflammation and enhancing surgical outcomes. To optimise the use of PRP in clinical settings, future research should focus on conducting larger trials with standardised protocols.

UNASSIGNED: The most effective injective treatment approach for sacroiliac joint (SIJ) pain remains unclear. Aim of this study was to quantify the safety and effectiveness of the available injective strategies to address SIJ pain.
UNASSIGNED: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature was conducted on PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases from inception until January 2023. Inclusion criteria were studies written in English, comparative and non-comparative studies regardless of the minimum follow-up, and case series on SIJ injections. Safety and efficacy of the different injection therapies for the SIJ were quantified. A meta-analysis was conducted on the available data of the documented injective therapies. The \"Checklist for Measuring Quality\" by Downs and Black was used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of papers.
UNASSIGNED: The literature search retrieved 43 papers (2431 patients): 16 retrospective case series, 2 retrospective comparative studies, 17 prospective case series, 3 prospective comparative studies, and 5 randomized controlled trials. Of the selected studies, 63% examined the effect of steroid injections, 16% of PRP injections, while 21% reported other heterogeneous treatments. The failure rate was 26% in steroid injections and 14% in PRP injections. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction in pain with the VAS score for both steroids and PRP: steroids improvement at mid-term 3.4 points (p < 0.05), at long-term 3.0 (p < 0.05), PRP improvement at mid-term 2.2 (p = 0.007), at long-term 2.3 points of the VAS pain scale (p = 0.02).
UNASSIGNED: Steroids are the most documented injective approach, with studies showing an overall safety and effectiveness. Still, the high number of failures underlined by some studies suggest the need for alternative procedures. Early PRP data showed promise, but the limitations of the current literature do not allow to clearly define the most suitable injective approach, and further studies are needed to identify the best injective treatment for SIJ patients.

BACKGROUND: The incidence of infertility caused by diminished ovarian reserve has become a significant problem worldwide. The beneficial effect of PRP treatment of the ovaries has already been described, but the high-level evidence of its effectiveness has not yet been proven.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed in five databases, until March 12th, 2024. Both randomized and non-randomized studies that compared PRP treatment of the ovaries to self-control among women with diminished ovarian reserve were eligible for inclusion. Hormonal levels (Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), Luteinizing hormone (LH), Estradiol (E2), In-vitro fertilization parameters (Antral follicle count, oocyte, and embryo count), biochemical and spontaneous pregnancy and livebirth were measured.
RESULTS: 38 eligible studies were identified reporting on 2256 women. The level of AMH rised, the level of FSH decreased significantly after the PRP treatment. AMH 1 month MD 0.20 (n = 856, p > 0.001, 95% CI: [0.12;0.28]), 2 months MD 0.26 (n = 910, p = 0.013, 95% CI: [0.07;0.44]), 3 months MD 0.36 (n = 881, p = 0.002,95% CI: [0.20;0.52]). FSH 1 month MD -10.20 (n = 796, p > 0.039, 95% CI: [-19.80;-0.61]), 2 months MD -7.02 (n = 910, p = 0.017, 95% CI: [-12.48; -1.57]), 3 months MD -8.87 (n = 809, p = 0.010, 95% CI: [-14.19; -3.55]). The antral follicle count elevated significantly MD 1.60 (n = 1418, p =  < 0.001, 95% CI: [0.92; 2.27]). Significant improvement was observed in the number of retrieved oocytes MD 0.81 (n = 802, p = 0.002, 95% CI: [0.36; 1.26]), and embryos created MD 0.91 (n = 616, p = 0.001, 95% CI: [0.45;1.36]). The incidence of spontaneous pregnancy following PRP treatment showed a rate with a proportion of 0.07 (n = 1370, 95% CI: 0.04-0.12), the rate of biochemical pregnancy was 0.18 (n = 1800, 95% CI: 0.15-0.22), livebirth was 0.11 (n = 1482, 95% CI: 0.07-0.15).
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis showed that based on protocolized analysis of the widest scientific literature search to date, containing predominantly observational studies, PRP treatment resulted in a statistically significant improvement in the main fertility parameters of diminished ovarian reserve women. Further multicenter, randomized trials, with large patient numbers and a longer follow-up period are needed to certify our results and develop the most effective treatment protocol.

UNASSIGNED: Prior research has demonstrated that platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has shown promising results in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis, lateral epicondylitis, and rotator cuff disease. However, there is a lack of standardization with PRP regarding its use for partial thickness rotator cuff tears (PTRCTs). The primary objective of this review is to assess the location of PRP injections in the shoulder, and how it corresponds to shoulder functional outcomes in PTRCTs.
UNASSIGNED: Data sources included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted between January 2010 and September 2021 with the terms PRP, partial thickness rotator cuff tears, intra-articular injections, subacromial injections, and intratendinous injections. Major inclusion criteria: partial thickness rotator cuff tears only, functional outcome scores pre-injection and post-injection, minimum 2-month follow-up time, and nonsurgical PRP injections only. Major exclusion criteria: PRP used as an adjunct therapy, full-thickness rotator cuff tears, and surgical intervention before treatment.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 8 RCTs were included which utilized PRP injected into the shoulder for PTRCTs. Studies were grouped by the location of the injection with the following breakdown: 1 glenohumeral joint, 4 subacromial bursa, and 3 intratendinous as the site of injection of PRP. Intra-articular PRP showed a 46.2% improvement (P < .05) in the Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand score at 12-month follow-up, however PRP compared to physical therapy had no statistical difference. For subacromial injections, one study showed no statistical difference between hyaluronic acid and PRP vs PRP, but both groups showed improvement compared to normal saline at 3, 6, and 12 months (P < .05). For intratendinous injections, PRP was found to be superior in the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index scores at 66.1% improvement (P < .05) at 3 months and 71.6% at 6 months (P < .05) after two PRP injections when compared to dry needling. Another study showed a statistically significant difference in ASES score when combining LP-PRP injection intratendinous and subacromial bursa when compared to corticosteroid at 3 months. Furthermore, at 6-month follow-up, the PRP group showed significant improvement in the Oxford Shoulder Score compared to a subacromial bursa corticosteroid group 53.8% vs 31.7% (P < .01).
UNASSIGNED: Based on our review of current literature, there is inconclusive evidence of the ideal location to inject PRP when partial rotator cuff tear is present. Despite PRP showing improved functional outcomes in patients diagnosed with PTRCT regardless of the injection site, more research is needed to figure out the optimal concentration of PRP, frequency of injection, and who are ideal candidates when utilizing PRP for PTRCTs.