Observational studyAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Photobiostimulation Therapy (PBST) and Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy (PEMF) in Hair Loss Treatment: Multicentric, Retrospective, Case-Control Study.
Observational study in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe combined use of micro-needling (MND), growth factors (GFs), and low-level light/laser therapy (LLLT), here identified as photobiostimulation therapy (PBST) and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF), is a hair loss (HL) treatment that needs to be standardized as it seems to have promising effects on hair regrowth (HR-G).
objectivesThe study compared the clinical and instrumental results obtained in patients affected by androgenic alopecia (AGA) and HL related to COVID-19 treated using PEMF combined with PBST with those obtained by only PBST.
methodsA multicentric, retrospective, observational, case-control study was conducted. Fifty-three patients were initially enrolled (30 males classified as stages I-III vertex by the Norwood-Hamilton scale, while 23 females classified in stages I-II by the Ludwig scale). Forty patients (20 females and 20 males) were analyzed after exclusion and inclusion criteria assessment. Twenty patients were treated with the combined use of PEMF and PBST (study group - SG) while 20 patients were treated with PBST (control group -CG). The HR-G was evaluated through photography, physician's, and patient's global assessment scales, in addition to standardized phototrichograms, during a short follow-up at T0-baseline, T1-16 weeks.
resultsThe promising results in SG patients, represented by a hair count (HC) increase of 14 hairs/0.65 cm
conclusionsThe comparison between SG and CG indicated that PEMF combined with PBST was a more efficient strategy in HR-G in terms of HC improvement than PBST alone. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39630190What 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.