Platelet-Rich Plasma Versus Saline for the Treatment of Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vulvar lichen sclerosus (LS) is a chronic relapsing dermatosis commonly affecting the anogenital region in postmenopausal women, though it can affect people of any age and sex. The current gold standard treatment is lifelong topical steroid application to reduce symptoms and prevent the progression of disease, causing irreversible architectural change to the vulval tissue. LS is associated with decreased quality of life and increased risk of vulvar neoplasia. Alternatives to current treatments are highly desired by both clinicians and patients. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is an autologous blood product containing high concentrations of platelets and growth factors and is hypothesized to promote wound healing. PRP has been reported to improve symptoms of LS in several case reports and uncontrolled trials. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of PRP versus saline injections to improve the clinical signs and symptoms of LS. METHODS: This is a protocol for a 12-month, single-center, parallel-group, double-blind, randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of PRP for LS compared to saline. Adult female patients with biopsy-proven LS who are otherwise in good health but are nonresponders to topical steroid treatment prior to inclusion are eligible for the trial. A total of 68 participants will be randomly allocated via a random number generator to receive either PRP or saline injections to areas of the vulva with LS. All participants will be blinded to the intervention received. Participants will be followed up with assessments of clinical LS signs, subjective symptom scores, and quality of life questionnaires by blinded assessors at 4 timepoints: baseline, 6 weeks, 6 months, and 12 months. The primary outcome is the clinical scoring system for LS-the total LS score. RESULTS: Recruitment commenced in May 2020 and concluded in November 2023. This study closed in September 2024 due to slow recruitment. Data are being analyzed in 2025, and results are expected to be published in late 2025. CONCLUSIONS: This study will evaluate the safety and efficacy of PRP injections compared to those of saline injections for the treatment of vulvar LS, potentially providing a novel therapeutic option for patients who do not respond to topical steroids. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618001321235p; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1207-4893; anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=375536. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/68871.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.072 | 0.010 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".