Abstract / Summary
Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a common non-scarring hair disorder with significant psychosocial impact. Conventional therapies have limited efficacy and require prolonged use, leading to increasing interest in regenerative treatments, such as platelet-rich plasma (PRP) and growth factor concentrate (GFC). This systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library were searched from January 1, 2019 to March 31, 2026. Studies evaluating PRP and GFC in AGA were included. Outcomes assessed included hair density, thickness, and count, and patient satisfaction. Due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures, a qualitative synthesis was performed. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Both PRP and GFC demonstrated improvements in hair-related outcomes, including hair density, hair thickness, and patient satisfaction. Several studies reported more favorable outcomes with GFC; however, these findings were derived from a limited number of small, methodologically heterogeneous studies, and should be interpreted cautiously. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in intervention protocols, preparation methods, outcome measures, and follow-up durations, and the inclusion of combination therapies in some studies further limited direct comparability between interventions. Both PRP and GFC appear to be safe and potentially effective regenerative therapies for the management of androgenetic alopecia. Although several studies reported favorable outcomes with GFC, the current evidence is limited by small sample sizes, methodological heterogeneity, variability in treatment protocols, and low-certainty comparative data. Consequently, no definitive conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or superiority of GFC over PRP can be drawn. Well-designed, adequately powered, randomized controlled trials with standardized preparation protocols and outcome measures are required to establish their comparative efficacy.