Article Text

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
Review of concentration yields in commercially available platelet-rich plasma (PRP) systems: a call for PRP standardization
  1. Priyal P Fadadu1,
  2. Anthony J Mazzola2,
  3. Corey W Hunter2,3 and
  4. Timothy T Davis4
  1. 1Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  2. 2Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, New York, USA
  3. 3Ainsworth Institute of Pain Management, New York, New York, USA
  4. 4Source Healthcare, Santa Monica, California, USA
  1. Correspondence to Ms Priyal P Fadadu, Mayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, United States; fadadu.priyal{at}


Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) has become increasingly popular in pain medicine with hopes of becoming a safe, effective alternative to routine treatments. However, given its autologous nature, PRP injectate may differ depending on the specific manufacturer and protocol. Currently, there is no standardization of reporting protocol. This systematic review compiles and standardizes values on PRP preparation and final product composition of platelets, white cell count, and growth factors for ease of comparison. On review of 876 studies, 13 studies were selected according to our inclusion criteria. Data from 33 PRP systems and protocols were extracted and standardized. Overall, PRP final product concentrations as well as PRP preparation protocols varied widely between systems. However, platelet concentration was directly correlated with both volume of blood collected and device centrifugal force. In conclusion, there is a large heterogeneity between PRP separation systems that must be resolved for proper study of this promising treatment.

  • platelet-rich plasma
  • standardization
  • regenerative medicine
  • concentration

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Contributors CH, TTD and PPF conceived of the presented idea. PPF performed the data collection, analysis and drafting of the article. CH and TTD reviewed the data. CH, PPF and AJM provided critical revisions to the article. All authors provided feedback and final approval of the version to be published.

  • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.