Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25124964›Full record

Trial reportLasers in surgery and medicine2014

The growth of human scalp hair in females using visible red light laser and LED sources.

Raymond J Lanzafame, Raymond R Blanche, Richard P Chiacchierini, Eric R Kazmirek, Jeffrey A Sklar

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 113 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Interventions for female pattern hair loss.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The efficacy of LED microneedle patch on hair growth in mice.Archives of dermatological research · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Raymond J LanzafameRaymond J. Lanzafame, MD PLLC, 757 Titus Avenue, 14617, Rochester, New York.
Raymond R Blanche
Richard P Chiacchierini
Eric R Kazmirek
Jeffrey A Sklar
Center for Aesthetic Dermatology & Laser Surgery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesLow level laser (light) therapy (LLLT) has been demonstrated to promote hair growth in males. A double-blind randomized controlled trial was undertaken to define the safety and physiologic effects of LLLT on females with androgenic alopecia.

methodsForty-seven females (18-60 years old, Fitzpatrick I-IV, and Ludwig-Savin Baldness Scale I-2, I-3, I-4, II-1, II-2 baldness patterns) were recruited. A transition zone scalp site was selected; hairs were trimmed to 3 mm height; the area was tattooed and photographed. The active group received a "TOPHAT655" unit containing 21, 5 mW diode lasers (655 ± 5 nm) and 30 LEDS (655 ± 20 nm), in a bicycle-helmet like apparatus. The placebo group unit appeared identical, containing incandescent red lights. Patients treated at home every other day × 16 weeks (60 treatments, 67 J/cm(2) irradiance/25 minute treatment, 2.9 J dose), with follow up and photography at 16 weeks. A masked 2.85 cm(2) photographic area was evaluated by another blinded investigator. The primary endpoint was the percent increase in hair counts from baseline.

resultsForty-two patients completed the study (24 active, 18 sham). No adverse events or side effects were reported. Baseline hair counts were 228.2 ± 133.4 (N = 18) in the sham and 209.6 ± 118.5 (N = 24) in the active group (P = 0.642). Post Treatment hair counts were 252.1 ± 143.3 (N = 18) in the sham group and 309.9 ± 166.6 (N = 24) in the active group (P = 0.235). The change in hair counts over baseline was 23.9 ± 30.1 (N = 18) in the sham group and 100.3 ± 53.4 (N = 24) in the active group (P < 0.0001). The percent hair increase over the duration of the study was 11.05 ± 48.30 (N = 18) for the sham group and 48.07 ± 17.61 (N = 24) for the active group (P < 0.001). This demonstrates a 37% increase in hair growth in the active treatment group as compared to the placebo group.

conclusionsLLLT of the scalp at 655 nm significantly improved hair counts in women with androgenetic alopecia at a rate similar to that observed in males using the same parameters.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAlopeciaDouble-Blind MethodFemaleHairHumansLow-Level Light TherapyMiddle AgedPhototherapyScalpTreatment Outcomealopeciaclinical researchhairhumanlaserLEDlow level laser therapy (LLLT)photobiomodulationRCT

Identifiers

PMID25124964
PMCPMC4265291
OpenAlexW2110166282

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.