Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40176994›Full record

ReviewSkin appendage disorders2025

A Qualitative Review of Misinformation on Alopecia.

Paula Finnegan, YiXuan Goh, Michelle Murphy, Cathal O'Connor

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Skin appendage disorders, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Paula FinneganDepartment of Dermatology, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital, Cork, Republic of Ireland.
YiXuan GohDepartment of Dermatology, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital, Cork, Republic of Ireland.
Michelle MurphyDepartment of Dermatology, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital, Cork, Republic of Ireland.
Cathal O'ConnorDepartment of Dermatology, South Infirmary Victoria University Hospital, Cork, Republic of Ireland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Alopecia is common and can lead to significant distress for patients. Patients often seek medical information on the Internet, which may leave them susceptible to misinformation from poor-quality sources. The aim of this study was to qualitatively assess misinformation available online related to alopecia. Summary: Several alopecia-related myths were identified, including false causes, criticism of conventional treatments, and bogus "natural" cures or remedies. False causes included headwear, haircare practices, and sexual practices. Treatments which were criticized included minoxidil, finasteride, topical corticosteroids, ciclosporin, methotrexate, and Janus kinase inhibitors. Alternative unfounded therapies which were touted included mineral supplements, biotin, B vitamin complexes, fish oils, shark cartilage, onion juice, rosemary oil, horsetail extract, and saw palmetto. Key Messages: Misinformation related to alopecia is prevalent online and may lead to suboptimal therapeutic outcomes. Dermatologists and other healthcare professionals should combat misinformation when encountered.

Indexed as

AlopeciaConspiracy theoriesDisinformationFake newsHair lossMisinformation

Identifiers

PMID40176994
PMCPMC11961141

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.