Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30815439›Full record

ReviewSkin appendage disorders2019

Complementary and Alternative Treatments for Alopecia: A Comprehensive Review.

Anna-Marie Hosking, Margit Juhasz, Natasha Atanaskova Mesinkovska

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Skin appendage disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 119 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Cancer-Related Alopecia Risk and Treatment.Current treatment options in oncology · 2025
    Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Approaches to management of endocrine therapy-induced alopecia in breast cancer patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Review
  16. Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Anna-Marie HoskingDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Margit JuhaszDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
Natasha Atanaskova MesinkovskaDepartment of Dermatology, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, California, USA.
University of California, Irvine · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The treatment of alopecia is limited by a lack of therapies that induce and sustain disease remission. Given the negative psychosocial impact of hair loss, patients that do not see significant hair restoration with conventional therapies often turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Although there are a variety of CAM treatment options on the market for alopecia, only a few are backed by multiple randomized controlled trials. Further, these modalities are not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and there is a lack of standardization of bioactive in gredients in over-the-counter vitamins, herbs, and supplements. In this article, we provide a comprehensive review of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of CAM, including natural products and mind and body practices, in the treatment of hair loss. Overall, there is a need for additional studies investigating CAM for alopecia with more robust clinical design and standardized, quantitative outcomes.

Indexed as

AlopeciaComplementary and alternative medicineEfficacy

Identifiers

PMID30815439
PMCPMC6388561
OpenAlexW2888140729

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.