ArticleDermatology and therapy2017
The Hair Shedding Visual Scale: A Quick Tool to Assess Hair Loss in Women.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Automated Quantification of Shedding Hairs from Smartphone Photographs Using an AI Tool for Alopecia Monitoring.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Alopecia Areata Incognita: Current Evidence.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Review
- Review
- Automating Hair Loss Labels for Universally Scoring Alopecia From Images: Rethinking Alopecia Scores.JAMA dermatology · 2023Article
- Relationship between hair shedding and systemic inflammation in COVID-19 pneumonia.Annals of medicine · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Scalp Hair Density and Diameter in the Arab Population: Clinical Office-Based Phototrichogram Analysis.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2022Article
- Effects of a New Topical Treatment Containing Several Hair Growth Promoters in Women with Early Female Pattern Hair Loss.Skin appendage disorders · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHair shedding is a common consequence of the normal hair cycle that changes with internal and external factors. Female pattern hair loss (FPHL) is difficult to assess in terms of shedding severity as the conscious perception of hair shedding varies according to each individual, and most utilized methods are semi-invasive or very time consuming. In this study, we establish and validate a hair-shedding scale for women with thick hair of different lengths.
methodsA visual analog scale was developed for thick hair of short, medium, and long lengths by dividing a bundle of hairs of each length into nine piles of increasing hair amount that were then photographed and arranged in order of size. Twenty women with no FPHL with each length of hair (60 total) were asked to select the photographed hair bundle that best correlated with the amount of hair they shed on an average day. A total of 94 women with FPHL with excessive shedding were then asked to repeat the same process.
resultsWomen with no FPHL and short, medium and long hair had mean shedding scores of 2.5, 2.35 and 2.4, respectively. Women with FPHL and short, medium and long hair had mean shedding scores of 7.25, 7.0 and 7.14, respectively. Statistically significant Spearman's ρ coefficient and κ coefficient demonstrated correlation and inter-observer reliability.
conclusionOur results show that women with FPHL not only shed considerable hair more than women with no FPHL, but that this hair-shedding visual scale is a fast and effective method of evaluating hair-shedding amounts in an office setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.