ArticleSkin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)2024
High-frequency ultrasonography of the scalp: A comparison between androgenetic alopecia and healthy volunteers.
Article in Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- High-frequency ultrasonography of the scalp: A comparison between androgenetic alopecia and healthy volunteers.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to assess differences in various scalp parameters between patients with androgenetic alopecia (AGA) and healthy volunteers using 22 MHz ultrasound.
methodsThirty patients with AGA (AGA group) and 30 healthy volunteers (control group) who visited the Department of Dermatology at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University from September 2021 to June 2022 were randomly selected. The patients with AGA met the diagnostic criteria outlined in the Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Androgenetic Alopecia. The severity of alopecia was assessed for males between grades 2 and 4 on the Norwood-Hamilton scale, and for females between stages 2 and 3 on the Ludwig scale. No artificial interventions were conducted at the vertex, and all examination conditions remained consistent. Ultrasound examinations at 22 MHz were performed on the scalp at the vertex in both the AGA and control groups. Seven parameters were measured, namely, epidermis + dermis thickness, entire scalp thickness, subcutaneous tissue thickness, average follicle width, average follicle length, follicle count, and the presence of color flow signals in the subcutaneous tissue. The differences in these parameters were then compared.
resultsThe AGA group showed reduced thickness of the entire scalp and subcutaneous tissue, narrower average follicle width, shorter average follicle length, lower hair follicle count, and fewer instances of color flow signals in the subcutaneous tissue at the vertex area (p < 0.05).
conclusionHigh-frequency (22 MHz) ultrasonography can be employed to visualize the entrance echo, dermis, subcutaneous tissue, and hair follicles of the scalp, thereby providing imaging for the clinical assessment of hair loss.
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.