ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
A decade of hair-loss clinical trials: a registry-based analysis of studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: ClinicalTrials.gov captures registered hair-loss trials across the full research lifecycle, including ongoing, discontinued, and unpublished studies. We used this registry to describe how the hair-loss clinical trial landscape has evolved from 2015 to 2025, focusing on trial volume, geography, indications, intervention types, outcome assessment, and sponsorship. Methods: We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional meta-research analysis of hair-loss-related interventional studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (2015-2025). Trials were categorized by recruitment status, country/region, sex, and age eligibility, primary indication, intervention modality, primary outcome assessment approach, and sponsor type. We summarized distributions and temporal trends using descriptive statistics. Results: We identified 514 hair-loss trials, with registrations increasing over time, particularly after 2020. Activity was global but concentrated in select regions, especially North America, and most trials were completed or recruiting. Androgenetic alopecia and alopecia areata predominated; pharmacologic therapies were most common overall, with greater therapeutic diversity in androgenetic alopecia. Outcome reporting was heterogeneous, objective imaging was infrequent, and sponsorship was divided between industry and academic/non-profit institutions. Discussion: This registry-based analysis nevertheless delineates a rapidly expanding yet structurally uneven landscape of hair-loss clinical research, marked by geographic concentration, therapeutic clustering, and variability in outcome specification. By systematically mapping trial activity, indications, modalities, sponsorship, and completion patterns, the study reframes attention from individual therapies to the broader architecture of evidence production. These findings underscore the need for standardized outcomes, broader population representation, and closer alignment between research investment and clinical need in hair-loss disorders.
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.