Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31686886›Full record

ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2019

Telogen effluvium: a comprehensive review.

Alfredo Rebora

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
10.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Alopecia Areata Incognita: Current Evidence.Dermatology and therapy · 2025
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alfredo ReboraUniversity of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
University of Genoa · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Excessive hair shedding is a common and alarming phenomenon, usually complained about by women. The disorder, named telogen effluvium (TE), bears several problems which are discussed in this essay. They are as follows: 1) how profuse a hair loss must be for TE to be diagnosed; 2) its heterogeneity that needs to be properly classified; 3) its distinction from androgenetic alopecia (AGA) with which it is often associated; 4) its main symptom, trichodynia, which is unclear how frequent and how diagnostic could be; 5) why histopathology has been reported to be nonspecific; and 6) its management, from diagnosis to treatment. A common mistake of the dermatologist is to minimize the complaint. Instead, the disorder may have a profound impact on the patients' mind and would require attention, time, and empathy.

Indexed as

alopeciahairtelogen effluvium

Identifiers

PMID31686886
PMCPMC6709511
OpenAlexW2969862999

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.