ReviewLasers in medical science2025
Lasers for treatment of androgenetic alopecia: an in-depth analysis.
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.
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.
- Hair regeneration: Mechano-activation and related therapeutic approaches.Journal of tissue engineeringReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
39979533What 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.