Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Is Intralesional Methotrexate an Effective Alternative to Intralesional Triamcinolone in Alopecia Areata? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 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.
- Is Intralesional Methotrexate an Effective Alternative to Intralesional Triamcinolone in Alopecia Areata? Findings From a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Trial
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
backgroundAlopecia areata (AA) is an autoimmune condition resulting in hair loss, sometimes just in small patches but occasionally across larger areas like the entire scalp. For localized AA, treatments often involve injecting corticosteroids, such as triamcinolone acetonide (TrA), directly into the affected areas. Methotrexate (MTX), a drug known for its ability to suppress immune responses, has also been considered as an alternative. However, there has not been much research directly comparing these two treatments.
methodsThis study involved 40 individuals with localized AA. These patients were divided into two groups: one received TrA injections, and the other was given MTX. Both groups were treated once a month for 3 months. We tracked their progress using the Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) over 6 months. Their trichoscopic findings, adverse effects, and satisfaction with treatment were also documented.
resultsCases receiving TrA showed strong improvements, with their SALT scores dropping by an average of 54.36%, which meant significant hair regrowth. In contrast, the MTX group saw their scores worsen by 54.6%, meaning losing more hair. For trichoscopic changes, both groups showed some progress, but only the reduction in black dots in the MTX group was statistically significant. Side effects like mild redness or pigmentation changes were uncommon and similar for both groups. When asked how satisfied they were, patients who received TrA gave a much higher score:7.1 out of 10 compared to 4.9 for MTX. DISCUSSION: According to our results, TrA outperformed MTX in treating localized AA, both in terms of hair regrowth and patient satisfaction. While MTX may have potential as a therapy, its inconsistent performance in this study suggests it is not ready to be a primary option for localized AA. Future research is needed to explore whether adjusting doses or combining it with other treatments could result in better outcomes.
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.