SynthesisJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Commercial Oral Supplements for Hair Growth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHair loss is a common condition affecting both men and women, with significant psychosocial impact. While oral supplements are marketed to improve hair growth, their clinical efficacy remains debated. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of commercial oral nutraceuticals for hair growth.
methodsFor this systematic review, a comprehensive search was undertaken in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Web of Science. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), open-label trials, and proof-of-concept studies evaluating oral supplements in adults (≥ 18 years) with alopecia or hair thinning. Primary outcomes included objective measures including hair counts, density, growth rate, tensile strength, and pull test. Secondary outcomes were investigator/patient assessments and adverse events.
resultsA total of 14 studies, including 967 participants, were included. Supplements assessed included Ceramosides, Nutrafol, Nourkrin, Lambdapil, Viviscal, Forti5, GFM oral supplement, and Cynatine HNS. Most trials were RCTs with durations of 12 weeks to 12 months. Meta-analysis demonstrated significant improvements with oral supplements versus placebo: reduced telogen hair density (mean difference [MD] -5.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] -6.74 to -5.08, p < 0.00001), increased anagen hair density (MD 10.48, 95% CI: 8.81 to 12.14, p < 0.00001), and reduced telogen proportion (MD 3.08, 95% CI: -3.35 to -2.81, p < 0.00001). Similarly, significant differences were observed regarding anagen proportion, elongation, and hairs extracted on a pull test (p < 0.00001 for all). Total hair count showed no significant difference (p = 0.06). Patient-reported outcomes consistently favored supplements, reporting improved thickness, reduced shedding, and better satisfaction. Adverse events were minimal, and safety profiles were favorable.
conclusionsIn conclusion, supplements show promising preliminary results, but more rigorous, independent research is needed to confirm these findings.
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.