Table 2.

Summary of preparation and formulation of PRP in the included studies.

Study	Trial/control	Volume of collected blood	Anticoagulant	Centrifugal method	Leukocyte-poor PRP
Filardo 2012 [14]	PRP vs. HA	150 ml	Not reported	Double-spin methodology	No
Patel 2013 [9]	PRP vs. saline	100 mL	Citrate phosphate dextrose and adenine	Single-spin methodology	Yes
Raeissadat 2015 [14]	PRP vs. HA	35-40 mL	Not reported	Double-spin methodology	No
Filardo 2015 [6]	PRP vs. HA	150 mL	Not reported	Double-spin methodology	No
Cole 2016 [18]	PRP vs. HA	60 mL	Not used	Double-spin methodology	Yes
Simental 2016 [27]	PRP vs. acetaminophen	27 mL	Sodium citrate	Double-spin methodology	Yes
Forogh 2016 [16]	PRP vs. corticosteroid	20 mL	Citrate dextrose	Double-spin methodology	No
Jubert 2017 [10]	PRP vs. corticosteroid	60 mL	Citrated dextrose	Single-spin methodology	No
Su 2018 [21]	PRP vs. HA	45 mL	Sodium citrate	Double-spin methodology	No
Ahmad 2018 [11]	PRP vs. HA	8 mL	Not reported	Single-spin methodology	No
Uslu 2018 [22]	PRP vs. corticosteroid	18 mL	Citrate dextrose	Single-spin methodology	No
Lisi 2018 [19]	PRP vs. HA	20 mL	Citrate dextrose	Single-spin methodology	No
Buendía 2018 [23]	PRP vs. HA vs. NSAIDs	60 mL	Not reported	Double-spin methodology	Yes
Wu 2018 [19]	PRP vs. saline	10 mL	Not reported	Dingle-spin methodology	No
Louis 2018 [24]	PRP vs. HA	52.5 mL (for men) or 37.5 mL (for women)	Citrate dextrose	Double-spin methodology	No
Lin 2019 [3]	PRP vs. HA vs. saline	10 mL	Not used	Dingle-spin methodology	Yes
Di Martino 2019 [25]	PRP vs. HA	150 mL	Not reported	Double-spin methodology	No
Elik 2019 [26]	PRP vs. saline	10 mL	Sodium citrate	Double-spin methodology	No
Huang 2019 [28]	PRP vs. HA vs. corticosteroid	8 mL	Not reported	Single-spin methodology	Yes