Shopping Cart
PRPmed Research · Reporting Audit 2026
PRP Reporting Audit 2026: What current PRP studies actually document
Can a reader reconstruct from a published PRP study which blood product was actually prepared and applied? The audit does not evaluate treatment efficacy. It evaluates reporting: source blood, anticoagulant, centrifugation, final product, platelet dose, recovery, activation and application across 21 clinical studies from six specialties.
At a glance
Key findings
Based on the fixed core of 21 papers after the independent second review.
- Only 30.0% of applicable PRP reporting items were fully reported at the median (IQR 25.0–33.3%).
- 6 of 21 papers reported centrifugal force in × g. Many reported RPM only, which is not transferable between centrifuges without rotor radius.
- Only 1 of 21 papers reported a robust platelet count for the final clinical product that was actually applied.
- No paper directly reported Platelet Recovery; none was fully classifiable by DEPA or MARSPILL.
- Preparation pathway, product format and application site were usually described, while the composition of the applied product was often insufficiently characterized.
30.0%Median fully reported MIBO-informed PRP-core items
28.6%report RCF directly in × g (6/21)
4.8%report a robust final platelet count of the clinical study product (1/21)
0/21directly report Platelet Recovery as a study result
0/21are fully classifiable by DEPA
0/21are fully classifiable by MARSPILL
Context: The primary analysis is based on a prespecified fixed core of 21 fully assessable papers. A second review produced seven coding corrections and identified five additional full-text studies published before the cut-off. These five papers are kept as an extension/sensitivity set and are not added post hoc to the primary percentages.
01 · Research question
Can a third party reconstruct the PRP that was studied?
PRP studies are often compared by their clinical outcomes. Such comparisons assume that it is clear what PRP was actually studied. A statement such as “5 mL PRP”, “3,000 rpm” or “5× baseline” describes the product only partly.
The audit therefore asks systematically: Are source blood and anticoagulation described? Is centrifugation reported in a transferable way? Was the actual final product quantitatively characterized? Can absolute platelet dose and Platelet Recovery be determined? Can the PRP be classified using established systems such as DEPA or MARSPILL?
02 · Methods & terminology
How the audit was built
- Primary corpus
- 21 clinical PRP publications with sufficiently assessable methods from the PRPmed working corpus (35 publications).
- Period
- Publications from 2024 through the cut-off date 19 Oct 2026.
- Specialties
- Orthopedics/Sports Medicine (7), Wound Care (4), Dermatology/Trichology/Aesthetic Medicine (3), Dentistry/OMFS (3), Gynecology/Urology (3), Ophthalmology (1).
- Source hierarchy
- Original article → supplement → study protocol/registry → explicitly referenced methods paper. Manufacturer information is not counted as a study measurement.
- MIBO-informed PRP-core
- 22 PRP-relevant reporting items operationalized across specialties from MIBO domains. Explicitly not a newly validated MIBO score.
- Status codes
- R = fully reported; P = partially/indirectly reported; U = unclear/contradictory; NR = not reported; NA = not applicable.
- DEPA
- Fully classifiable only if Dose, Efficiency (Recovery), Purity and Activation can be determined.
- MARSPILL
- Fully classifiable only if all original MARSPILL components can be determined from the publication.
- Review process
- Initial extraction → independent second review against original article/methods → adjudication of discrepancies → final metrics.
- What is assessed
- Reporting completeness and classifiability—not clinical efficacy, treatment quality or product superiority.
Key terms
RCF (× g)
Relative centrifugal force as a multiple of gravitational acceleration. It depends on rotational speed and effective rotor radius and—unlike RPM—is transferable between centrifuges.
Platelet dose
Absolute number of platelets applied: final product concentration × applied volume. Requires a measured final platelet concentration.
Platelet Recovery
Proportion of platelets from processed whole blood that reaches the final product. It describes manufacturing efficiency.
MIBO
Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (Murray et al. 2017): minimum reporting information for PRP and cell-therapy studies.
DEPA
Classification by Dose, Efficiency, Purity and Activation (Magalon et al. 2016).
MARSPILL
Classification by Method, Activation, Red blood cells, Spin, Platelets, Image guidance, Leukocytes and Light activation (Lana et al. 2017).
Why no single “quality score”?
A trial may be methodologically well randomized yet describe its PRP incompletely. Conversely, a PRP product may be documented in detail without this implying a better clinical outcome. Reporting, product classification and clinical efficacy are therefore kept strictly separate.
03 · Independent second review
What the second review corrected
All 21 papers were rechecked independently against the original article and methods after the initial extraction. Seven studies required material changes. These were adjudicated before the final metrics were calculated.
Impact on key metrics
Median fully reported items26.3%30.0%+3.7 pp
RCF directly reported in × g23.8%28.6%+4.8 pp
Final platelet count of the clinical product9.5%4.8%−4.7 pp
| Study | Area | Item & status | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| C007 | Final volume and application volumes | M20 · P → R | 3–4 mL recovered PRP and site-specific injection volumes are reported in the full text. 37 °C/10 min is a PTBM processing condition, not storage. |
| C015 | RCF/spin protocol | M08 · P → R | 6 mL blood, 0.6 mL 4% citrate, 1,500 × g/5 min and approx. 3 mL PRP + 2 mL HA are directly reported. |
| C019 | Anticoagulant | M01/M02 · → R | The paper explicitly states “without anticoagulant”; under the prespecified rule this counts as reported. |
| C027 | Preparation details | M07 · R → P | The initial extraction was too specific: blood volume, system, spin parameters and final volume are not reported. |
| C030 | Final platelet count | M15 · R → P | The value describes the PRP fraction before mixing with fibrinogen, not the final PRP-FG clinical product. DEPA dose of the final product cannot be determined. |
| C031 | PRP storage | M10 · NR → R | Storage conditions are reported in the protocol. |
| C032 | Spin protocol | M08 · P → R | 1,500 rpm/5 min + 1,200 rpm/5 min are fully specified; RCF is still not directly reported. |
Consequence: The main conclusion remained unchanged, but several metrics shifted materially. The median and direct-RCF rate increased, while the strict final-platelet metric fell to 4.8% because one value described only a PRP fraction before further processing into PRP-fibrin glue.
04 · Results
The documentation chain: where information is lost
Mapping the 22 items along the preparation pathway reveals a clear profile: preparation and application are visible, while source blood, storage and especially final-product composition are poorly documented. Select a section to view the individual items.
- fully reported
- partly reported
- unclear
- not reported
- 011.2%Source blood1 of 84 entries
- 0226.2%Anticoagulation11 of 42 entries
- 0383.3%Preparation & spin35 of 42 entries
- 046.0%Storage & timing5 of 84 entries
- 05100%Final product: format21 of 21 entries
- 061.6%Final product: composition1 of 63 entries
- 0710.0%Activation3 of 30 entries
- 0889.8%Application44 of 49 entries
PRPmed aggregation: share of fully reported entries per section, pooled across all applicable item-study combinations (sum R ÷ sum applicable). Pale gold: partially reported.
Primary-analysis metrics
¹ Additional indicators outside the 22-item core. The volume indicator is therefore not identical to M20 (applied volume, 16/21 fully reported).
MIBO-informed PRP-core completeness was 30.0% at the median and 29.4% at the mean; the interquartile range was 25.0–33.3%.
The pattern is clear: application volume is frequently documented, whereas biological characterization of the actual blood product is rare. Particularly weak areas are Platelet Recovery, baseline blood characterization and complete final WBC/RBC differentiation.
05 · Reporting gaps
Which information is most often missing?
All 22 items are shown below. The largest gaps are listed first by default; the control restores the M01–M22 order.
| Item | Reporting parameter | applicable | R | P | U | NR | complete |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M01 | Anticoagulant: concentration | 21 | 3 | 11 | 0 | 7 | 14.3% |
| M02 | Anticoagulant: volume/ratio | 21 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 12 | 38.1% |
| M03 | Whole-blood storage temperature | 21 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 20 | 0.0% |
| M04 | Whole-blood light exposure/protection | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 0.0% |
| M05 | Baseline platelet count | 21 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 17 | 4.8% |
| M06 | Baseline RBC/WBC | 21 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 18 | 0.0% |
| M07 | Kit or manual preparation traceable | 21 | 19 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 90.5% |
| M08 | Centrifugation/spin protocol | 21 | 16 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 76.2% |
| M09 | Platelet Recovery | 21 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 19 | 0.0% |
| M10 | PRP storage temperature | 21 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 9.5% |
| M11 | PRP light exposure/protection | 21 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 19 | 9.5% |
| M12 | Time blood draw → processing | 21 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 19 | 0.0% |
| M13 | Time processing → delivery | 21 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 18 | 4.8% |
| M14 | Final PRP format | 21 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| M15 | Final PLT in actual study product | 21 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 11 | 4.8% |
| M16 | Final differential WBC/RBC characterization | 21 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 17 | 0.0% |
| M17 | Activator volume | 15 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 6.7% |
| M18 | Activator concentration | 15 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13.3% |
| M19 | Application site | 21 | 21 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| M20 | Applied volume | 21 | 16 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 76.2% |
| M21 | Additive/co-intervention documented | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
| M22 | Carrier/scaffold documented | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 100.0% |
Six areas were never fully reported in the 21 papers: whole-blood storage temperature, whole-blood light exposure/protection, complete baseline RBC/WBC characterization, Platelet Recovery, time from blood draw to processing, and complete final WBC/RBC characterization.
“applicable” < 21 means the item was not applicable (NA) to the remaining papers, for example activator details when no activation was used.
06 · Centrifugation
RCF rather than RPM: why the unit matters physically
Only 6 of 21 papers directly reported relative centrifugal force. Many studies report RPM only. RPM cannot be transferred between centrifuges unless the effective rotor radius is known.
RCF = 1.118 × 10−5 × r (cm) × RPM²
Mini calculator
How much × g is “3,000 rpm”?
The effective radius is usually found in the centrifuge or rotor instructions for use.
Relative centrifugal force
1,006× g
The same “3,000 rpm” corresponds to about 604 to 1,811 × g at rotor radii of 6 to 18 cm—a factor of three.
This does not mean a study that reports RPM used an incorrect protocol. It means that a third party cannot unambiguously reconstruct the applied centrifugal force from the publication. The full RCF/RPM calculator with rotor-radius database is available under Knowledge & Tools.
07 · Final product
“Measured” is not the same as “quantitatively reported”
One of the strictest audit rules is that target values, manufacturer specifications, system values or statements such as “approximately 5× baseline” do not count as an actual quantitative measurement of the final study product.
This became important during the second review: in one PRP-fibrin-glue study, a high platelet concentration was documented for the PRP fraction before mixing with fibrinogen. The clinically applied product was the further processed PRP-FG. The value therefore does not count as complete final characterization of the clinical product.
Platelet dose and Platelet Recovery
None of the 21 papers directly reported Platelet Recovery as a study result. Both metrics can be calculated only if source blood and final product are quantitatively characterized and the relevant volumes are reported.
Platelet dose = PLT_PRP × PRP volume
Platelet Recovery (%) = (PLT_PRP × PRP volume) ÷ (PLT_whole blood × processed blood volume) × 100
Both values can be calculated for your own protocol using the calculator in section 9.
08 · Classification
DEPA and MARSPILL: why full classification fails
| System | fully classifiable | partly classifiable | not classifiable | Typical reason |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| DEPA | 0/21 | 15/21 (71.4%) | 6/21 (28.6%) | Dose, Recovery or Purity cannot be determined; final RBC/WBC data are missing. |
| MARSPILL | 0/21 | 21/21 (100%) | 0/21 | At least one original component is missing; modern 3-spin, light-modulated or PRP-FG formats do not always fit older categories cleanly. |
This does not mean that the PRP itself was “poor”. It only means that the published information is insufficient for complete classification.
09 · Worked example
Single- vs double-spin RCT 2026
A randomized 2026 study (C014, PMID 41593810) is among the most detailed papers in the core. It reports 35 mL blood + 5 mL ACD-A, 450 × g for 10 min and, for double spin, an additional approximately 2,150 × g for 6 min. Injection volume was standardized to 5 mL, platelets and leukocytes were actually measured, and no exogenous activation was used. PMID 41593810.
Single spin
- Final PLT
- 447.57 ×10³/µL
- Baseline PLT
- 205.14 ×10³/µL
- Enrichment
- 2.33×published · from group means 2.18×
- Platelet dose
- ≈ 2.24 bn
- Platelet Recovery
- ≈ 31.2%
Double spin
- Final PLT
- 601 ×10³/µL
- Baseline PLT
- 189 ×10³/µL
- Enrichment
- 3.18×published · from group means 3.18×
- Platelet dose
- ≈ 3.01 bn
- Platelet Recovery
- ≈ 45.4%
Calculated from published group means. Assumptions: PRP volume = standardized injection volume (5 mL); processed blood volume = 35 mL without ACD-A. If more PRP was produced than injected, actual Recovery would be higher. A mean of individual enrichment factors may differ from the ratio of group means.
Even here, full DEPA classification remains open because final erythrocyte information for the Purity component is incomplete. The calculator shows this directly.
Calculator: dose, Recovery and DEPA subcategories
Source blood
Final product
2.24billion platelets
2.18×Enrichment
31.2%Platelet Recovery
DEPA thresholds according to Magalon et al. 2016. Purity = PLT ÷ (PLT + WBC + RBC). This is a numerical classification of documentation, not an assessment of product quality or suitability.
10 · Extension set
Five additional studies identified during the second review
The targeted missing-study check was not intended to start a new broad search. Nevertheless, five clearly eligible full-text studies were identified that were absent from the original 35-publication working corpus. They are kept separate so the primary analysis is not changed after the results were known.
| ID | Year | Specialty | Publication | Reporting detail | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M001 | 2026 | Ophthalmology | Autologous platelet-rich plasma versus autologous serum in treatment of dry eye disease | 9 mL blood; sodium citrate (amount/concentration NR); 2,500 rpm/3 min, single spin; supernatant PRP dispensed immediately; +4–8 °C between uses; 4×/day for 6 weeks; no quantitative final PLT measurement. | PMID 41915052 |
| M002 | 2026 | Ophthalmology | Autologous platelet-rich plasma eyedrops for severe dry eye disease unresponsive to autologous serum | 350 mL blood in a CPDA-1 blood bag; Helmer PC2200i; 1,300 × g/6 min/22 °C + 3,800 × g/10 min/22 °C; buffy coat/RBC removed; stored at −20 °C, 4 °C during use; no exogenous activation; PLT measured in 8/10 preparations: 1,215 ± 520 ×10³/µL (5.6×); leukocytes not measured. | PMID 42699038 |
| M003 | 2026 | Dentistry / Orthodontics | Impact of Platelet-Rich Plasma on the Rate of Canine Retraction: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial | EDTA Vacutainer; blood volume NR; 1,500 rpm/10 min + 2,500 rpm/10 min; buffy coat included; no robust absolute final PLT value or activator characterization in the assessed version. | PMID 42231989 |
| M004 | 2026 | Dentistry / Orthodontics | Evaluation of the effect of platelet-rich plasma on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A split-mouth controlled study | 36 mL blood; 22 G; ACD-A; Duo Quattro; 900 × g/10 min + 1,500 × g/15 min; plasma + buffy coat; “7–10× baseline” only as enrichment statement, no absolute final PLT value. | PMID 42434483 |
| M005 | 2025 | Dentistry / Orthodontics | Comparison of the Effect of Platelet-rich Plasma and Injectable Platelet-rich Fibrin on the Rate of Orthodontic Tooth Movement: A Prospective Split-mouth Randomized Clinical Study | Fresh PRP: 2,000 rpm/10 min + 3,000 rpm/15 min; blood volume and anticoagulant not reported; 1 mL PRP per treatment side, intraligamentary + submucosal; repeated every 21 days. | DOI |
Particularly relevant: The prospective 2026 dry-eye study (M002) actually measured final platelet concentration in 8 of 10 preparations: 1,215 ± 520 ×10³/µL, or 5.6× baseline. These data show that quantitative final-product characterization is feasible—it is simply reported infrequently.
11 · Minimum dataset
A practical minimum dataset for future PRP publications
Eleven areas that a PRP publication or practice protocol should document at minimum. Use the list as a self-check and tick what your protocol already covers.
0 / 11 areas documented · Nothing selected yet.
Editorial synthesis from MIBO, DEPA, MARSPILL and the observed reporting gaps; not a newly validated consensus standard. Your selections are neither stored nor transmitted.
12 · Limitations
What this audit does not do
- The audit is based on a structured, verified working corpus and is not a database-exhaustive PRISMA systematic review.
- Primary percentages deliberately refer to the fixed core of 21 papers.
- Five later-identified papers are kept separately as a sensitivity/extension set.
- The MIBO-informed PRP-core is a cross-specialty operationalization of PRP-relevant MIBO domains, not a formally validated new MIBO version.
- Missing information was not estimated; manufacturer data were not treated as study measurements.
- Modern product formats such as PRP-fibrin glue, light modulation or more than two spins do not always fit older classification systems cleanly.
- The audit does not evaluate clinical efficacy and does not provide treatment recommendations.
13 · Open Data
Open Data
The post-review dataset contains the 21 primary papers, all 22 MIBO-informed item codes and DEPA/MARSPILL classifiability. The extension set is provided separately.
Primary analysisCSV · international master file of the 21 primary papers↓Open-data workbookXLSX · primary analysis, screening, codebook and references↓Screening 35CSV · verified screening working corpus↓Extension setCSV · five additionally identified full-text studies↓
License: The Open Data files are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Use, sharing and adaptation are permitted with appropriate attribution. This license does not automatically apply to the editorial article itself.
Recommended dataset citation: PRPmed Redaktion. PRP Reporting Audit 2026 – Open Data. Version 2.0, data status 23 October 2026, prpmed.de.
14 · Study corpus
Included primary studies (n = 21)
21 studies shown
| ID | Specialty | Indication | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| C002 | Dermatology / Trichology | Lichen planopilaris | PMID 38525908 |
| C007 | Dermatology / Aesthetic Medicine | Facial rejuvenation | PMID 42225690 |
| C009 | Orthopedics / Sports Medicine | Knee osteoarthritis | PMID 38646173 |
| C010 | Orthopedics / Sports Medicine | Hip osteoarthritis | PMID 38948640 |
| C012 | Orthopedics / Sports Medicine | Partial rotator cuff tear | PMID 39044241 |
| C013 | Orthopedics / Sports Medicine | Knee osteoarthritis | PMID 40429547 |
| C014 | Orthopedics / Sports Medicine | Knee osteoarthritis | PMID 41593810 |
| C015 | Orthopedics / Sports Medicine | Knee osteoarthritis | PMID 41735950 |
| C016 | Orthopedics / Sports Medicine | Late-stage knee osteoarthritis | PMID 42231445 |
| C017 | Dentistry / Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Orthodontics | PMID 38882220 |
| C018 | Dentistry / Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Orthodontics | PMID 39416559 |
| C019 | Dentistry / Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery | Dental autotransplantation | PMID 40959578 |
| C022 | Gynecology / Urology | Female stress urinary incontinence | PMID 38942391 |
| C023 | Gynecology / Urology | Genitourinary syndrome of menopause | PMID 40731770 |
| C024 | Gynecology / Urology | Vulvovaginal atrophy | PMID 41291715 |
| C026 | Wound Care | Diabetic foot ulcer | PMID 40909759 |
| C027 | Wound Care | Diabetic foot ulcer | PMID 41767359 |
| C030 | Wound Care | Diabetic wound | PMID 42569694 |
| C031 | Ophthalmology | Dry eye disease | PMID 39384222 |
| C032 | Dermatology / Trichology | Androgenetic alopecia | PMID 38634195 |
| C035 | Wound Care | Grade III/IV pressure ulcers | PMID 40667675 |
15 · FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Is this a systematic review?
No. It is a structured reporting audit of a verified working corpus. The primary analysis contains 21 fully assessable publications. A separate database-exhaustive PRISMA process would be required to claim a complete review of all PRP studies from 2024–2026.
Why were the five newly identified studies not simply added?
To avoid changing the prespecified 21-paper primary analysis after the results were known. The five papers are transparently reported as an extension/sensitivity set.
What does 30.0% MIBO-informed PRP-core mean?
At the median, 30% of applicable PRP-relevant reporting items were fully reported. Partial information does not count as complete in this primary metric.
Why does RPM alone not equal RCF?
Relative centrifugal force also depends on effective rotor radius. RPM without radius is therefore not transferable between different centrifuges.
Why is “5× baseline” not a complete final-product measurement?
An approximate or target statement is not the same as an actually measured cellular value in the PRP used in the study population.
Does poorly documented PRP automatically mean poor PRP?
No. Missing reporting only means that preparation or composition cannot be fully assessed from the publication. It does not establish anything about biological or clinical quality.
Why was no study fully classifiable by DEPA?
DEPA requires Dose, production Efficiency/Recovery, Purity and Activation to be determinable. Recovery and complete final RBC/WBC data were the most frequent gaps.
What is the practical value of the audit?
It shows which minimum information future PRP publications and protocols should provide so that results are more comparable and reproducible.
16 · References
Methodological anchor literature
- Murray IR et al. Minimum Information for Studies Evaluating Biologics in Orthopaedics (MIBO): Platelet-Rich Plasma and Mesenchymal Stem Cells. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017. PMID 28509821.
- Magalon J et al. DEPA classification: a proposal for standardising PRP use and a retrospective application of available devices. BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med. 2016. PMID 27900152.
- Lana JFSD et al. Contributions for classification of platelet rich plasma – proposal of a new classification: MARSPILL. Regen Med. 2017. PMID 28758836.
- Nazaroff J et al. Cross-specialty analysis of PRP reporting. PMID 33891618.
- Lim JJ et al. Most Orthopaedic Platelet-Rich Plasma Investigations Don't Report Protocols and Composition. PMID 38522650.
- Nakagawa HF et al. MIBO adherence in randomized PRP studies for knee osteoarthritis. PMID 39754417.
- Jahani P et al. Single- versus double-spin PRP in knee osteoarthritis. 2026. PMID 41593810.
- Sirirattanasoporn T et al. Autologous PRP eye drops in severe dry eye. 2026. PMID 42699038.
17 · Citation
Recommended citation
PRPmed Redaktion. PRP Reporting Audit 2026: What current PRP studies actually document. Version 2.0 (after independent second review). PRPmed.de. Data status 23 October 2026. URL: https://prpmed.de/en/blog/news/prp-reporting-audit-2026