SynthesisJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
A Systematic Review of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Platelet-Rich Fibrin for Periorbital Rejuvenation.
Synthesis in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Case Series on a Layered Biomaterial Strategy for Midface Rejuvenation: Combining Collagen Stimulators and Hyaluronic Acid.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
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) and platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) have become popular autologous options for facial rejuvenation due to their regenerative potential and favorable safety profiles. The periorbital region remains one of the most challenging treatment sites, as conventional approaches such as hyaluronic acid fillers carry a risk of complications and may not provide natural, sustained results.
aimThis systematic review aims to compare injectable PRP and PRF in periorbital rejuvenation, with emphasis on treatment protocols, efficacy, adverse effects, and patient-reported outcomes.
methodsA PRISMA-guided search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, and Wiley Library. Included studies were evaluated for differences in preparation, injection techniques, frequency of treatment, clinical outcomes, adverse events, and satisfaction.
resultsA total of 14 studies met inclusion criteria. Across studies, PRF was associated with improvements in skin texture, wrinkles, and crepiness, while PRP showed stronger evidence for treating hyperpigmentation. Both modalities demonstrated favorable safety profiles and high patient satisfaction, with only mild, transient adverse effects reported. Longevity of results remains unclear: PRF improvements often diminished by 6 months, whereas PRP outcomes for pigmentation were sustained at similar intervals.
conclusionPRF shows promise in improving periorbital texture and fine lines, while PRP appears more effective for pigmentation, but current evidence does not support the superiority of one modality over the other. However, the long-term durability of PRF remains uncertain, with improvements often diminishing by 6 months. Larger randomized controlled trials with standardized, objective outcome measures are needed to clarify their long-term efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.