ReviewDermatology practical & conceptual2026
Autologous Micrograft Technology (AMT) and Finasteride for the Management of Androgenic Alopecia - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Their Efficacy and Safety.
Review in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPresent treatment methods for the management of androgenetic alopecia (AGA) have shortcomings. Though recent studies suggest that autologous micrograft technology (AMT) may be an effective alternative, smaller samples sizes in these studies calls for using statistical methods to get pooled effect sizes.
objectivesTo compare the efficacy of AMT and finasteride in the management of AGA using a meta-analysis study, comparators being hair count and percentage of patients benefitting from the treatment.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was performed, using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (Reg. No: CRD42024578804). Databases searched for potential articles included PubMed, ScienceDirect, CINAHL, Cochrane, MEDLINE-OVID, Embase-OVID, Web of Science Core Collection, and Bielefeld Academic Search Engine.
resultsThis study suggests that AMT treatment may be a comparable alternative to ≥1 mg/day finasteride for the management of AGA. With regards to improvement in hair count, both AMT (Hedges's g=0.324, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.198-0.450; P<0.001) and finasteride (Hedges's g=0.251, 95% CI: 0.153-0.349; P<0.001) showed small effect sizes. When the percentage of patients who benefitted is considered, AMT had a medium effect size (Hedges's g=0.634, 95% CI: 0.372-0.896; Z-value=4.736; P<0.001), whereas finasteride had a small effect size (Hedges's g=0.201, 95% CI: 0.153-0.248; P<0.001).
conclusionThis study suggests that AMT is an effective method for promoting hair growth in patients with stages 2-5 AGA. This study presents preliminary evidence that the efficacy of AMT is comparable to that of finasteride.
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.