ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2024
A bibliometric analysis of alternative drug therapy options in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
- A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Trends in Hair Loss Treatment: Key Contributions, Emerging Hotspots, and Future Directions.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Research Trends and Hotspots in Female Pattern Hair Loss: A Bibliometric Study.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- The 100 Most-Cited Publications in Lichen Planopilaris: A Bibliometric Analysis.Skin appendage disorders · 2025Article
- Androgenetic Alopecia: An Update on Pathogenesis and Pharmacological Treatment.Drug design, development and therapy · 2025Review
- Engineered collagen XVII-loaded dissolving microneedle patch for promoting hair regrowth in androgenic alopecia.Regenerative biomaterials · 2025Article
- Advances in Topical Therapies for Clinically Relevant and Prevalent Forms of Alopecia.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral finasteride and topical minoxidil formulations are the only FDA-approved drug therapies for androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Research into dutasteride, topical finasteride, and nontopical minoxidil (low-dose oral and sublingual) formulations in the treatment of AGA has spiked within recent years. Early findings show that these alternative drug therapies may have similar to improved efficacy and safety profiles relative to the conventional treatment options.
aimsConducting a bibliometric analysis, compare trends in publications on these alternative drug therapies, identify key contributors, evaluate major findings from top-cited articles, and elucidate gaps in evidence.
methodsA search was conducted on the Web of Science database for publications on the use of alternative drug therapies in the treatment of AGA. A total of 95 publications, published between January 2003-March 2024, and their citation metadata were included in the analysis.
resultsDutasteride showed the greatest (n = 37) and longest (20+ years) history of publications, as well as the highest cumulative citations (n = 914); however, nontopical minoxidil showed a burst in research activity within the last 5 years (n = 33 publications since 2019). A relatively low number of randomized control trials (n = 3) for nontopical minoxidil suggests a need for higher-quality evidence.
conclusionsOur analysis reveals major trends, contributors, and gaps in evidence for alternative drug therapies for AGA, which can help inform researchers on their future projects in this growing field of study. There is enthusiasm for exploring off-label formulations: nontopical forms of minoxidil (oral and sublingual), topical finasteride, and mesotherapy.
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.