Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Scoping review reveals substantial methodological variability and insufficient commercial validation in equine PRP systems, highlighting the need for standardized preparation and reporting.
(1) Background: Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy has become a cornerstone of equine regenerative medicine, yet significant methodological variability compromises reproducibility and clinical comparability. (2) Methods: This scoping review systematically mapped and analyzed peer-reviewed studies describing equine PRP preparation methods and commercial systems (2000-2024) following PRISMA-ScR guidelines. (3) Results: Twenty-four studies met the inclusion criteria, encompassing 317 horses and both manual and commercial devices. Double-spin manual protocols predominated, though centrifugation parameters, anticoagulants, and activation strategies varied widely. Methodological quality, assessed using an adapted nine-criterion framework, revealed that only 29% of studies achieved comprehensive reporting, particularly lacking platelet-yield and activation details. An additional multilingual web search identified 24 veterinary PRP kits, of which only 10 had published validation in horses, exposing a pronounced gap between marketing claims and scientific evidence. (4) Conclusions: These discrepancies underscore the need for standardized reporting, transparent characterization, and independent evaluation of PRP systems. The proposed framework aims to guide future research toward reproducible, evidence-based practices that enhance therapeutic reliability and clinical translation in equine regenerative medicine.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Carmona et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: