Skip to main content
. 2021 Mar 15;38(5):1003–1012. doi: 10.1007/s10815-021-02146-9

Table 1.

Studies evaluating PRP and thin endometrium

Author Study design Level of evidence Control group (n) Intervention group (n) Endometrium prior to intervention (mm) Endometrium post intervention (mm) p value p value
Clinical Chemical Clinical
Chang et al. (2015) [7] Cohort 3 - 5 5.9–6.6 >7 - 80 -
Zahedmodarres et al. (2017) Cohort 3 - 10 4–6 7.1–7.5 - 40 -
Eftekhar et al. (2018) [6] RCT 2 33 33 6.09±0.47 8.67±0.64 0.001 32.5 0.091 0.044
Chang et al. (2019) [21] Prospective cohort 3 30 34 6.32±0.54 7.65±0.22 <0.05 44.12 - 0.036
Kim et al. (2019) [2] Prospective cohort 3 - 20 4–6.8 4.2–9.1 0.070 30 0.020
Nazari et al. (2019) [9] Double-blind RCT 2 30 30 4.92±0.67 7.21±0.18 <0.001 33.3 0.031 0.048
Frantz et al. (2020) [22] Retrospective case series 4 - 21 <5 - - 66.7 -

PRP platelet-rich plasma, HRT hormone replacement therapy, eSF human endometrial stromal fibroblasts, eMSC endometrial mesenchymal stem cells, BM-MSC bone marrow–derived mesenchymal stem cells, IC Ishikawa endometrial adenocarcinoma cells