ReviewJournal of family medicine and primary care2025
Topical minoxidil effectiveness in enhancing facial aesthetics: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present systematic review and meta analysis was to synthesize the available data, mostly concerning safety and side effects of the available literature on minoxidil therapy for facial hair loss, to provide family physicians with evidence to guide their initial assessment and decisions concerning treatment and referral for this conditions. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed concerning study selection, synthesis, and reporting. A thorough search was conducted utilizing PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. A focus was placed on papers published between January 2001 and May 2024. Based on a quality assessment of the study using the standards outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the risk of bias (RoB 2.0) was graded as low, unclear, or high. A total of 302 studies were obtained by our search approach from 294 studies from electronic databases and eight studies from manual search. After duplicates were eliminated, 196 records were left, and 93 studies were eliminated based on their titles and abstracts. An additional 84 studies were eliminated for not meeting inclusion criteria after reading over the complete text of the remaining 103 records. Consequently, the current systematic review contained 19 RCTs. Upon utilizing the RoB 2.0 tool, it became apparent that most of the examined studies raised some concerns about RoB. Five studies reported high RoB, while six studies revealed low RoB. This systematic review establishes low dose minoxidil treatment as an effective intervention for those seeking to enhance facial hair development with relatively minimal side effects, which can be relevant in primary care settings.
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.