Dataset Information

Progress in human ovarian rejuvenation: Current platelet-rich plasma and condensed cytokine research activity by scope and international origin.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

As clinicians and patients await consensus on intraovarian platelet-rich plasma (PRP) treatment, this project evaluated contemporary research trends in the literature.

Methods

A PubMed/NLM search aggregated all ovarian PRP-related publications (n=54) to evaluate their scope, abstract utility, submission-to-publication interval, journal selected, article processing charge (APC), free reader access to full-text manuscripts, number and nationality of authors, and inclusion of international collaborators. The NIH Clinical Trials database was also audited.

Results

Published output on intraovarian PRP has increased consistently since 2016, especially among investigators in Greece, Iran, USA, and Turkey. Between 2013 and 2021, 42 articles met the relevancy criteria, of which 40.5% reported clinical studies, small series, or case reports, 33% described experimental animal models, and 23.8% were opinion/review papers. Only two works included a placebo control group. The submission-to-publication interval (mean±standard deviation) was 130±96 days, there were 5.9±3.2 authors per project, and journals invoiced US $1,613±1,466 (range, $0-$3,860) for APCs.

Conclusion

There was no correlation between APC and time to publish (Pearson's r=-0.01). Abstract content was inconsistent; sample size and patient age were often missing, yet free full-text "open access" was available for most publications (59.5%). The NIH Clinical Trials portal lists eight registered studies on "ovarian rejuvenation," of which two are actively recruiting patients, while four have been terminated or have an uncertain status. Two studies have concluded, with results from one posted to the NIH website. PRP and its derivatives for ovarian treatment show early promise, but require further investigation. Research is accelerating and should be encouraged, particularly placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Sills ES

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8651764 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThere remains little experimental evidence and no randomized clinical trial to date to confirm the benefit of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for facial rejuvenation.ObjectiveTo investigate whether PRP injection improves the visual appearance, including texture and color, of photodamaged facial skin.Design, setting, and participantsIn this randomized clinical trial, participants and raters were masked to groupings. The setting was an academic-based, urban outpatient dermatology practice in Chicago, Illinois. Participants were adults aged 18 to 70 years with bilateral cheek rhytids of Glogau class II or greater. The duration of the study was August 21, 2012, to February 16, 2016.InterventionsEach participant received 3 mL intradermal injections of PRP to one cheek and sterile normal saline to the contralateral cheek.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were photoaging scores (with subscores for fine lines, mottled pigmentation, roughness, and sallowness) as rated by 2 masked dermatologists. Secondary outcomes included participant self-assessment scores of improvement on a 5-point scale (worsening, no change, mild improvement, moderate improvement, or significant improvement), participant overall satisfaction scores on a 4-point scale (not satisfied, slightly satisfied, moderately satisfied, or very satisfied), and participant-reported or investigator-observed adverse events.ResultsOf 27 enrolled participants, 19 (mean [SD] age, 46.37 [10.88] years; 17 female) were analyzed. Reported adverse events, which were not associated with the study agent, included redness (n = 18), swelling (n = 16), bruising (n = 14), pruritus (n = 1), skin scaling (n = 1), and dryness of skin (n = 1). No participants reported any adverse events at 12 months. Mean (SD) photoaging scores rated by 2 dermatologists showed no significant difference between PRP and normal saline for fine lines (baseline, 1.00 [0.75] vs 1.05 [0.78]; 2 weeks, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]; 3 months, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]; 6 months, 0.95 [0.71] vs 0.95 [0.71]), mottled pigmentation (baseline, 1.21 [0.53] vs 1.21 [0.54]; 2 weeks, 1.16 [0.60] vs 1.16 [0.60]; 3 months, 1.00 [0.47] vs 1.11 [0.46]; 6 months, 1.16 [0.69] vs 1.16 [0.69]), skin roughness (baseline, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 2 weeks, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 3 months, 0.47 [0.61] vs 0.47 [0.61]; 6 months, 0.37 [0.60] vs 0.37 [0.68]), and skin sallowness (baseline, 1.11 [0.88] vs 1.11 [0.88]; 2 weeks, 0.95 [0.85] vs 0.95 [0.85]; 3 months, 0.58 [0.61] vs 0.58 [0.61]; 6 months, 0.37 [0.68] vs 0.37 [0.68]). At 6 months after a single treatment, participants rated the PRP-treated side as significantly more improved compared with normal saline for texture (mean [SD] self-assessment score, 2.00 [1.20] vs 1.21 [0.54]; P = .02) and wrinkles (mean [SD] self-assessment score, 1.74 [0.99] vs 1.21 [0.54]; P = .03).Conclusions and relevanceMasked participants noted that both fine and coarse texture improved significantly more with a single treatment of PRP than with normal saline. Both participants and raters found PRP to be nominally but not significantly superior to normal saline.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01372566.