Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22592723›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2012

Interventions for female pattern hair loss.

Esther J van Zuuren, Zbys Fedorowicz, Ben Carter, Régis B Andriolo, Jan Schoones

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 64 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Interventions for female pattern hair loss.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  2. Interventions for rosacea.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Topical antifungal treatments for tinea cruris and tinea corporis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Female pattern alopecia: current perspectives.International journal of women's health · 2013
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Esther J van ZuurenDepartment ofDermatology, LeidenUniversityMedicalCenter, Leiden,Netherlands. E.J.van_Zuuren@lumc.nl.
Zbys Fedorowicz
Ben Carter
Régis B Andriolo
Jan Schoones
Leiden University Medical Center · NLAMA International University · BHBangor University · GBUniversidade do Estado do Pará · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFemale pattern hair loss, or androgenic alopecia, is the most common type of hair loss affecting women. It is characterised by progressive shortening of the duration of the growth phase of the hair with successive hair cycles, and progressive follicular miniaturisation with conversion of terminal to vellus hair follicles (terminal hairs are thicker and longer, while vellus hairs are soft, fine, and short). The frontal hair line may or may not be preserved. Hair loss can have a serious psychological impact on people.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness and safety of the available options for the treatment of female pattern hair loss in women. SEARCH

methodsWe searched the following databases up to October 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), PubMed (from 1947), Web of Science (from 1945), and reference lists of articles. We also searched several online trials registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of interventions for female pattern hair loss in women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN

resultsTwenty two trials, comprising 2349 participants, were included. A wide range of interventions were evaluated, with 10 studies investigating the different concentrations of minoxidil. Pooled data from 4 studies indicated that a greater proportion of participants (121/488) treated with minoxidil reported a moderate increase in their hair regrowth when compared with placebo (64/476) (risk ratio (RR) = 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 2.43). In 7 studies, there was an important increase of 13.28 in total hair count per cm(2) in the minoxidil group compared to the placebo group (95% CI 10.89 to 15.68). There was no difference in the number of adverse events in the twice daily minoxidil and placebo intervention groups, with the exception of a reported increase of adverse events (additional hair growth on areas other than the scalp) with minoxidil (5%) twice daily. Most of the other comparisons consisted of single studies. These were assessed as high risk of bias: They did not address our prespecified outcomes and provided limited evidence of either the efficacy or safety of these interventions. AUTHORS'

conclusionsAlthough more than half of the included studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias, and the rest at unclear, there was evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of topical minoxidil in the treatment of female pattern hair loss. Further direct comparison studies of minoxidil 5% applied once a day, which could improve adherence when compared to minoxidil 2% twice daily, are still required. Consideration should also be given to conducting additional well-designed, adequately-powered randomised controlled trials investigating several of the other treatment options.

Indexed as

AlopeciaDrug Administration ScheduleFemaleHairHumansMinoxidilRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMinoxidil

Identifiers

PMID22592723
OpenAlexW2942719587

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.