↓ Skip to main content

Low level laser therapy and hair regrowth: an evidence-based review

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Medical Science, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#13 of 1,434)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
8 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
video
5 YouTube creators

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
132 Mendeley
Title
Low level laser therapy and hair regrowth: an evidence-based review
Published in
Lasers in Medical Science, December 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10103-015-1818-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mina Zarei, Tongyu C. Wikramanayake, Leyre Falto-Aizpurua, Lawrence A. Schachner, Joaquin J. Jimenez

Abstract

Despite the current treatment options for different types of alopecia, there is a need for more effective management options. Recently, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was evaluated for stimulating hair growth. Here, we reviewed the current evidence on the LLLT effects with an evidence-based approach, focusing more on randomized controlled studies by critically evaluating them. In order to investigate whether in individuals presenting with hair loss (male pattern hair loss (MPHL), female pattern hair loss (FPHL), alopecia areata (AA), and chemotherapy-induced alopecia (CIA)) LLLT is effective for hair regrowth, several databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database were searched using the following keywords: Alopecia, Hair loss, Hair growth, Low level laser therapy, Low level light therapy, Low energy laser irradiation, and Photobiomodulation. From the searches, 21 relevant studies were summarized in this review including 2 in vitro, 7 animal, and 12 clinical studies. Among clinical studies, only five were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which evaluated LLLT effect on male and female pattern hair loss. The RCTs were critically appraised using the created checklist according to the Critical Appraisal for Therapy Articles Worksheet created by the Center of Evidence-Based Medicine, Oxford. The results demonstrated that all the performed RCTs have moderate to high quality of evidence. However, only one out of five studies performed intention-to-treat analysis, and only another study reported the method of randomization and subsequent concealment of allocation clearly; all other studies did not include this very important information in their reports. None of these studies reported the treatment effect of factors such as number needed to treat. Based on this review on all the available evidence about effect of LLLT in alopecia, we found that the FDA-cleared LLLT devices are both safe and effective in patients with MPHL and FPHL who did not respond or were not tolerant to standard treatments. Future randomized controlled trials of LLLT are strongly encouraged to be conducted and reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement to facilitate analysis and comparison.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 132 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 132 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 20 15%
Student > Master 17 13%
Student > Bachelor 16 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 6%
Other 8 6%
Other 16 12%
Unknown 47 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 6%
Engineering 5 4%
Social Sciences 3 2%
Other 11 8%
Unknown 51 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 40. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 April 2024.
All research outputs
#1,041,745
of 25,809,966 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#13
of 1,434 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#17,450
of 399,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,809,966 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,434 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 399,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.