ReviewCureus2026
Efficacy and Safety of Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Topical Minoxidil in Androgenetic Alopecia: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Choosing between single-agent and combined therapies for androgenetic alopecia (AGA) remains a frequent clinical challenge, particularly when comparing topical options against autologous treatments. This study compares how 5% topical minoxidil and autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) perform against each other alone and in combination, focusing on efficacy, side effects, and patient satisfaction. The search covered the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed, Scopus, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), and Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO) up to May 2026. We targeted prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing or combining minoxidil 5% with PRP in adult cohorts (≥18 years). Quality assessment relied on Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2). Four trials enrolling 226 patients qualified for analysis. Monotherapies displayed distinct clinical patterns. Topical 5% minoxidil generated steady hair shaft thickness over extended follow-up. In contrast, monthly PRP injections induced rapid initial hair pull test conversion by week 12. Combined administration showed more favorable clinical outcomes compared to individual monotherapy arms across evaluated endpoints, with individual trials reporting up to 66.7% hair diameter gains, higher trichoscopic hair counts, and patient satisfaction rates reaching up to 90%. Complications remained local and minor, presenting as mild scalp itching with minoxidil and transient post-injection soreness with PRP. Marked variation in PRP preparation methods, spin protocols, and injected volumes prevented quantitative pooling. Studies evaluated predominantly male cohorts during short six-month tracking windows. Single-agent regimens provide partial responses without clear overall dominance. Adding monthly PRP injections to daily 5% minoxidil demonstrates promising comparative efficacy for vertex density restoration, though further standardized trials are warranted.
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.