ArticleLasers in medical science2022
Efficacy assessment for low-level laser therapy in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a real-world study on 1383 patients.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Full-Spectrum phototherapy in hair loss management: a systematic review of wavelength-dependent mechanisms, clinical efficacy, and future directions.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Promises and Pitfalls of Regenerative Therapies for Androgenetic Alopecia: Platelet-Rich Plasma, Photobiomodulation, Stem Cells, and Exosomes.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Human-Centric, Three Dimensional Micro Light-Emitting Diodes for Cosmetic and Medical Phototherapy.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- The Pharmacokinetics of Topical Finasteride 0.25% Spray in Chinese Adult Male Volunteers with Androgenic Alopecia: A Phase I Study.Advances in therapy · 2025Article
- Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia: Current Guidance and Unmet Needs.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2023Review
- Efficacy of Low-level Laser Therapy in Minimising Morbidity Associated with Removal of Impacted Mandibular Third Molar - A Comparative Study.Annals of maxillofacial surgeryArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been a treatment modality by many androgenetic alopecia (AGA) patients in recent years. It remained unclear as to how long the treatment regime should be maintained, and which characteristics of patients should this be recommended. A real-world study was carried out with an FDA-cleared low-level laser helmet for 1383 patients. Ordinal logistic regression analysis with propensity score matching (PSM) was used to investigate the factors related to efficacy assessment. More than 80% of users were between 18 and 40 years old. The median use times were 133 for mild AGA patients and 142 for moderate-to-severe AGA patients, which equated to 38 weeks and 40 weeks, respectively. The overall clinical effectiveness was nearly 80%. PSM analysis revealed that gender (P = 0.002), use period (P = 0.068), scalp conditions with dandruff, rash, and itchy symptoms were associated with the grading of efficacy assessment. Male users (ordinal OR: 1.35, CI: (1.01, 1.79)); use for more than 180 times or use period for 1 year (ordinal OR: 1.40, CI: (1.11, 1.96)); and those with scalp dandruff (ordinal OR: 1.34, CI: (1.01, 1.87)), rash (ordinal OR: 1.47, CI: (1.04, 2.07)), and itchy symptoms (ordinal OR: 1.51, CI: (1.12, 2.03)) had better efficacy assessments. The recommended treatment regime with low-level laser helmet was more than 1 year or 180 use times. Male patients with dandruff, rash, and itchy symptoms in scalps tended to have a better efficacy assessment.
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.