The Effectiveness OF PRP Therapy in Women After Urinary Incontinence Surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Female sexual dysfunction (FSD) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI) are prevalent conditions that severely affect the quality of life of women, often with limited non-surgical treatment options. Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) therapy, known for its regenerative properties, is emerging as a potential treatment for these conditions. Despite promising preclinical results, there is a lack of consensus on the efficacy, optimal dosing, and administration sites for PRP injections in treating FSD and SUI. This systematic review evaluates the efficacy and safety of PRP injections for FSD and SUI. A comprehensive search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library was conducted, including clinical studies on humans. Data were assessed for bias using RoB-2 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for observational studies. The review included 12 studies involving 327 women, with 172 treated for FSD and 155 for SUI. PRP injections significantly improved clinical scores such as the Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI), Vaginal Health Index (VHI), International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire—Short Form (ICIQ-SF), and Urogenital Distress Inventory (UDI-6). The studies indicated PRP's efficacy with minimal adverse events.PRP therapy demonstrated significant improvements in FSD and SUI symptoms, though results were constrained by study heterogeneity and risk of bias. Notable improvements were observed in the FSFI and VHI for FSD, and ICIQ-SF and UDI-6 scores for SUI. PRP injections present a promising, minimally invasive treatment for FSD and SUI. However, high-quality RCTs are needed to establish standardized protocols and confirm long-term efficacy and safety. This study underscores the potential of PRP therapy while highlighting the necessity for further research to solidify its clinical utility.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".