Review highlights reporting gaps in bovine and equine platelet products
Bottom line
Platelet-based blood products such as platelet-rich plasma, platelet concentrate, and platelet lysate are drawing wider use in bovine and equine medicine, but a new scoping review argues the evidence base is still hampered by inconsistent methods and incomplete reporting. The review, published in Veterinary Sciences, maps how studies in cattle and horses have used differing blood collection, centrifugation, anticoagulants, activation methods, and product characterization, making it hard to compare results or translate findings into practice. That concern fits with earlier veterinary reviews showing similar heterogeneity in bovine platelet concentrate studies and equine PRP literature, where key details like platelet counts, leukocyte content, and preparation steps are often missing. (mdpi.com)
Why it matters: For veterinary professionals, the takeaway isn’t that platelet-based therapies lack promise, but that “PRP” or related labels may describe very different products from one paper or clinic to the next. Prior reviews in cattle found only a small evidence base and called for stronger standardization, while equine-focused analyses have warned that many commercial or manual protocols still lack robust validation and transparent reporting. In practice, that means clinicians should look closely at how a product was prepared, what its cellular composition was, and whether a study’s methods are reproducible before applying findings to cases in the field. (mdpi.com)
What to watch: Expect more pressure for species-specific reporting standards, better validation of commercial systems, and studies that link product composition to clinical outcomes in horses and cattle. (mdpi.com)
Key facts
- Study type
- Scoping review
- Journal
- Veterinary Sciences
- Species
- Cattle and horses
- Products reviewed
- Platelet-rich plasma, platelet concentrate, and platelet lysate
- Main finding
- Methods and reporting were inconsistent, limiting reproducibility and clinical translation
- Problem areas
- Blood collection, centrifugation, anticoagulants, activation methods, and product characterization varied across studies
- Reporting gaps
- Key details such as platelet counts, leukocyte content, and preparation steps were often missing
- Clinical takeaway
- A label like PRP may describe very different products from one paper or clinic to another
A new scoping review in Veterinary Sciences takes aim at a familiar problem in regenerative medicine: platelet-based blood products are being studied more often in horses and cattle, but the underlying methods are still all over the map. The paper examines blood collection, preparation methods, and reporting completeness for platelet-rich plasma, platelet concentrate, and platelet lysate in bovine and equine medicine, arguing that inconsistent protocols and incomplete descriptions continue to limit reproducibility and clinical translation. (mdpi.com)
That finding lands in a field that has grown quickly over the past decade. MDPI’s own special issue framing on regenerative therapeutics in veterinary medicine highlights expanding interest in platelet-derived products across species and indications, especially for soft tissue, wound, corneal, and musculoskeletal applications. In horses, a 2024 bibliometric analysis found the literature has expanded steadily since 2000, with research clustering around musculoskeletal disease, osteoarthritis, and orthobiologics. (mdpi.com)
The deeper issue is that growth in publication volume hasn’t necessarily produced methodologic clarity. Earlier equine work has shown that PRP preparation protocols vary widely, including single-spin versus double-spin techniques, different centrifugation forces and times, and inconsistent handling of leukocytes and activation steps. In cattle, a 2023 systematic review found only six eligible studies and reported that most used double centrifugation, but the small and uneven evidence base limited broader conclusions about clinical use. (mdpi.com)
More recent equine analyses point in the same direction. A 2025 scoping review of equine PRP therapies reported substantial reporting gaps in baseline blood composition, soluble mediator assessment, platelet yield, and activation protocols, and noted that many commercially available equine PRP kits lacked peer-reviewed validation. A newer 2026 study on manual double-spin equine PRP preparation similarly tied protocol choices to measurable differences in platelet and growth factor composition, reinforcing the idea that preparation method can materially change the final product. (mdpi.com)
Industry and academic commentary around PRP has been moving toward the same conclusion for years: standardization matters. Reviews in both veterinary and human orthopedics have repeatedly found that studies often fail to report the variables needed to interpret or reproduce a platelet product, including anticoagulant type, blood volume, centrifugation settings, platelet concentration, leukocyte content, and activation method. That means the apparent effectiveness of one “PRP” protocol may not be generalizable to another product carrying the same name. (arthroscopyjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com)
Why it matters: For veterinarians, especially those in equine sports medicine, lameness, theriogenology, dairy practice, and food animal surgery, this is a practical evidence-translation issue. If published studies don’t fully describe what was collected, how it was processed, and what the final product contained, it becomes difficult to compare papers, counsel pet parents or livestock clients on likely outcomes, or choose between in-house and commercial preparation systems. The growing interest in orthobiologics may continue, but the clinical value depends on being able to connect a specific formulation to a specific indication and outcome. (mdpi.com)
The review also has implications for journal editors, researchers, and product developers. Veterinary Sciences already points authors to established reporting frameworks and data transparency expectations, and the broader PRP literature increasingly supports minimum reporting checklists tailored to platelet products. If those standards become more widely adopted in bovine and equine studies, the field could move from broad enthusiasm toward more reliable, comparable, and clinically useful evidence. (mdpi.com)
What to watch: The next step is likely not a single breakthrough product, but better-designed trials, clearer reporting standards, and validation studies that show exactly which platelet-based formulation works, for which species, indication, and treatment setting. (mdpi.com)