Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39979533›Full record

ReviewLasers in medical science2025

Lasers for treatment of androgenetic alopecia: an in-depth analysis.

Aditya K Gupta, Daniel Taylor, Keyvan Nouri

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Aditya K GuptaTemerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada. aditya.gupta@utoronto.ca.
Daniel TaylorMediprobe Research Inc, London, Canada.
Keyvan NouriUniversity of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, FL, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With recent developments in laser technologies and growing demand for alternative treatments, laser therapy has been increasingly studied as a treatment for androgenetic alopecia (AGA). Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and fractional laser therapies have been marketed as safe and effective options for treating AGA in comparison with traditional drug therapies, which are associated with unwanted side effects. We discuss the history of development and implementation of laser devices for treatment of hair loss and outline the proposed mechanism of action for LLLT and fractional lasers. Additionally, we summarize the evidence of efficacy for LLLT and fractional laser monotherapies in the treatment of AGA and assess potential risk of bias in available clinical studies. While evidence is still mounting, there exists some congruency in proposed mechanisms for the stimulation of hair follicles by laser therapy. Laser light is believed to foster a supportive microenvironment for the hair follicle, through improved vascularization and modulation of inflammation, and directly stimulate growth signaling in the follicle. As for evidence of clinical efficacy, studies of LLLT and fractional laser monotherapies have reported improvement in AGA markers from baseline values. However, these studies have a relatively small sample size and our risk of bias assessment suggests some concerns in procedural design. Although laser therapy represents a safe alternative treatment option for AGA, its evidence of efficacy is hindered by a lack of large-scale, high-quality clinical trials, susceptibility to bias, and a wide range of devices, treatment protocols and parameters.

Indexed as

AlopeciaLow-Level Light TherapyHair FollicleHumansAlopeciaFractional laserHair lossLaserLow-level laser therapy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.