ReviewDermatology online journal2026
Role of dermaroller-mediated microneedling in hair follicle stimulation and hair growth.
Review in Dermatology online journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dermaroller-mediated microneedling is a minimally invasive modality used to induce controlled cutaneous injury and promote hair follicle regeneration. Unlike automated microneedling devices, dermarollers are manually operated, introducing variability in technique and treatment parameters. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy, safety, and procedural variability of dermarolling as a monotherapy for hair loss. Methods: A literature search of PubMed through September 2025 was performed using terms related to dermarolling and hair loss. Studies were included if they specifically evaluated dermaroller devices. Data regarding study design, patient population, treatment parameters, and outcomes were extracted. Results: Three studies met inclusion criteria, including two human clinical studies and one animal model. One clinical study demonstrated a statistically significant increase in hair count and thickness, whereas another reported no significant improvement in hair density or scalp coverage. The animal study showed enhanced hair regeneration, with optimal effects observed at needle lengths of 0.25-0.5 mm. Considerable variability existed across studies in needle length, treatment frequency, duration, and procedural endpoints. Reported adverse effects were generally mild and transient, though improper technique may increase the risk of epidermal injury and scarring. Conclusion: Evidence supporting dermaroller monotherapy for hair loss remains limited and inconsistent. Lack of standardized protocols likely contributes to variable outcomes. Further large-scale, randomized controlled trials are needed to define optimal treatment parameters and establish the safety and efficacy of dermarollling in clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42522488What 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.