ReviewInternational orthopaedics2026
Laws and regulations on platelet-rich plasma use for musculoskeletal pathologies in South America: a narrative review.
Review in International orthopaedics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- From Regenerative Mechanisms to Clinical Practice: Current Status, Controversies, and Future Perspectives of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Urology and Sexual Medicine.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposePlatelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a promising orthobiologic therapy for musculoskeletal pathologies. However, its clinical application is influenced by varying legal and regulatory frameworks across regions. This narrative review aims to discuss the regulatory and legal framework for PRP therapy in musculoskeletal pathologies in South America.
methodsThe authors searched and reviewed contemporary literature on laws and regulations governing platelet-rich plasma use for musculoskeletal pathologies in South America in electronic databases, summarising the findings in a narrative review.
resultsPRP regulation in South America falls into three categories: (1) countries with clear regulatory frameworks (Argentina, Bolivia, Colombia, Peru), where PRP is legally recognised and governed by specific provisions; (2) countries with emerging or developing regulations (Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay, Suriname, Uruguay, Venezuela, Guyana), where PRP is indirectly regulated under broader blood or tissue laws; and (3) countries permitting PRP only for experimental or research purposes (Brazil). Despite regional efforts to align with international standards, significant disparities exist in legal clarity, safety protocols, and clinical guidelines. These inconsistencies pose risks such as unregulated medical tourism and hinder scientific progress.
conclusionPRP in South America presents three distinct regulatory scenarios: clear, established regulations; emerging or developing frameworks; and use restricted to experimental or research contexts. While most countries align with international safety standards, significant variation persists in how orthobiologics are clinically governed. The future challenge is to unify these regulations and build an international consensus on processing standards that guarantee patient safety and quality, while enabling innovation and legal clarity for clinicians.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41269299What 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.