Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32411394›Full record

ReviewNPJ Regenerative medicine2020

Immune modulation of hair follicle regeneration.

Waleed Rahmani, Sarthak Sinha, Jeff Biernaskie

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ Regenerative medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
11.1field-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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Squaric Acid Dibutylester Promotes Innate Immune-Driven Hair Growth with CD206JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Waleed Rahmani1Department of Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3903-7620
Sarthak Sinha2Department of Comparative Biology and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0770-3150
Jeff Biernaskie2Department of Comparative Biology and Experimental Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada.
University of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mammalian hair follicle undergoes repeated bouts of regeneration orchestrated by a variety of hair follicle stem cells. The last decade has witnessed the emergence of the immune niche as a key regulator of stem cell behavior and hair follicle regeneration. Hair follicles chemotactically attract macrophages and T cells so that they are in range to regulate epithelial stem cell quiescence, proliferation and differentiation during physiologic and injured states. Disruption of this dynamic relationship leads to clinically significant forms of hair loss including scarring and non-scarring alopecias. In this review, we summarize key concepts behind immune-mediated hair regeneration, highlight gaps in the literature and discuss the therapeutic potential of exploiting this relationship for treating various immune-mediated alopecias.

Indexed as

AutoimmunitySkin stem cells

Identifiers

PMID32411394
PMCPMC7214459
OpenAlexW3022261812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.