Scholarlink

Background <p>Platelet-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.</p> Methods <p>Following 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.</p> Results <p>PRP 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.</p> Conclusion <p>While 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.</p> Level of Evidence I <p>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 <a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

The Efficacy and Safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma in the Treatment of Melasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月1日

查看全文
  • Chen Ma,
  • Qixuan Wang,
  • Ling Zhang

摘要

Background

Platelet-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.

Methods

Following 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.

Results

PRP 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.

Conclusion

While 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.