ArticleThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2021
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of United States Food and Drug Administration-Approved, Home-use, Low-Level Light/Laser Therapy Devices for Pattern Hair Loss: Device Design and Technology.
Article in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exosome-driven treatments for hair regrowth in androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review of preclinical studies, clinical experiments, safety, and future prospects.Molecular biology reports · 2026Pooled it
- Relative Efficacy of Conventional Monotherapies and Select Nonconventional, Over-the-Counter Products for Male Androgenetic Alopecia: A Network Meta-Analysis Study.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Pooled it
- Comparative efficacy and safety of low-level laser therapy and topical Minoxidil combination vs. topical Minoxidil monotherapy in androgenetic alopecia management: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- "Effectiveness of minimally invasive injectable modalities in the management of androgenetic alopecia among adults-A systematic review".Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2024Pooled it
- Androgenetic alopecia in polycystic ovary syndrome: a cutaneous marker of systemic metabo-inflammatory and endocrine dysfunction.Endocrine connections · 2026Review
- Updates in Treatment for Androgenetic Alopecia.Annals of dermatology · 2025Review
- Senescence Modulation: An Applied Science Review of Strategies in Anti-Aging, Regenerative Aesthetics, and Oncology Therapy.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Therapeutic potential of stem cell-derived exosomes in hair regeneration: A systematic review.World journal of stem cells · 2025Article
- Application of Non-Pharmacologic Therapy in Hair Loss Treatment and Hair Regrowth.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2024Review
- Novel Application of 1064-nm Picosecond Nd:YAG Laser for Male Androgenetic Alopecia Treatment.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2024Article
- Androgenetic alopecia: An update.JAAD international · 2023Review
- Signaling pathways in hair aging.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023Review
- Stem cell-based approaches for alopecia: A narrative review of current and emerging treatment strategies.Cell transplantationReview
- Male androgenetic alopecia.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaReview
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 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLow-level light/laser therapy (LLLT) can potentially stimulate hair growth in pattern hair loss (PHL), with many available home-use LLLT devices of different designs and technology on the market. However, not all devices are cleared by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with very few studies to support their efficacy.
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effectiveness of FDA-approved LLLT devices for PHL treatment.
methodsWe included articles related to FDA-approved home-use LLLT devices on PubMed and Medline, using the FDA 510(K) Premarket Notification database and the systematic search of articles up to January 2020. The standardized mean difference (SMD) for the changes of hair density treated by LLLT versus sham devices was analyzed.
resultsOnly 32 home-use LLLT devices have been approved by the FDA as of January 2020. The meta-analysis comprised seven double-blinded, randomized, controlled trials. The overall quantitative analysis yielded a significant increase in hair density in those treated by LLLT versus sham groups (SMD: 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.993-1.639). The subgroup analysis demonstrated the increased hair growth in male and female subjects with both comb- and helmet-type devices. There were significant LLLT sources in the LDs alone (SMD: 1.52, 95% CI: 1.16-1.88) and the LDs combination (SMD: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.55-1.16) (
conclusionLLLT is potentially effective for PHL treatment. Nonetheless, the long-term follow-up study in patients with severe PHL with combined standard treatment and comparison between LLLT devices and energy sources is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34980962PMC8675345W4206848202What 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.