↓ Skip to main content

Interventions for female pattern hair loss

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
57 tweeters
facebook
10 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
237 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interventions for female pattern hair loss
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, May 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007628.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Esther J van Zuuren, Zbys Fedorowicz, Jan Schoones

Abstract

Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenic alopecia, is the most common type of hair loss affecting women. It is characterised by progressive shortening of the duration of the growth phase of the hair with successive hair cycles, and progressive follicular miniaturisation with conversion of terminal to vellus hair follicles (terminal hairs are thicker and longer, while vellus hairs are soft, fine, and short). The frontal hair line may or may not be preserved. Hair loss can have a serious psychological impact on women. To determine the efficacy and safety of the available options for the treatment of female pattern hair loss in women. We updated our searches of the following databases to July 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 6), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1872), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), PubMed (from 1947), and Web of Science (from 1945). We also searched five trial registries and checked the reference lists of included and excluded studies. We included randomised controlled trials that assessed the efficacy of interventions for FPHL in women. Two review authors independently assessed trial quality, extracted data and carried out analyses. We included 47 trials, with 5290 participants, of which 25 trials were new to this update. Only five trials were at 'low risk of bias', 26 were at 'unclear risk', and 16 were at 'high risk of bias'.The included trials evaluated a wide range of interventions, and 17 studies evaluated minoxidil. Pooled data from six studies indicated that a greater proportion of participants (157/593) treated with minoxidil (2% and one study with 1%) reported a moderate to marked increase in their hair regrowth when compared with placebo (77/555) (risk ratio (RR) = 1.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51 to 2.47; moderate quality evidence). These results were confirmed by the investigator-rated assessments in seven studies with 1181 participants (RR 2.35, 95% CI 1.68 to 3.28; moderate quality evidence). Only one study reported on quality of life (QoL) (260 participants), albeit inadequately (low quality evidence). There was an important increase of 13.18 in total hair count per cm² in the minoxidil group compared to the placebo group (95% CI 10.92 to 15.44; low quality evidence) in eight studies (1242 participants). There were 40/407 adverse events in the twice daily minoxidil 2% group versus 28/320 in the placebo group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.87; low quality evidence). There was also no statistically significant difference in adverse events between any of the individual concentrations against placebo.Four studies (1006 participants) evaluated minoxidil 2% versus 5%. In one study, 25/57 participants in the minoxidil 2% group experienced moderate to greatly increased hair regrowth versus 22/56 in the 5% group (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.73). In another study, 209 participants experienced no difference based on a visual analogue scale (P = 0.062; low quality evidence). The assessments of the investigators based on three studies (586 participants) were in agreement with these findings (moderate quality evidence). One study assessed QoL (209 participants) and reported limited data (low quality evidence). Four trials (1006 participants) did not show a difference in number of adverse events between the two concentrations (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.20; low quality evidence). Both concentrations did not show a difference in increase in total hair count at end of study in three trials with 631 participants (mean difference (MD) -2.12, 95% CI -5.47 to 1.23; low quality evidence).Three studies investigated finasteride 1 mg compared to placebo. In the finasteride group 30/67 participants experienced improvement compared to 33/70 in the placebo group (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.37; low quality evidence). This was consistent with the investigators' assessments (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.90; low quality evidence). QoL was not assessed. Only one study addressed adverse events (137 participants) (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.34; low quality evidence). In two studies (219 participants) there was no clinically meaningful difference in change of hair count, whilst one study (12 participants) favoured finasteride (low quality evidence).Two studies (141 participants) evaluated low-level laser comb therapy compared to a sham device. According to the participants, the low-level laser comb was not more effective than the sham device (RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.49; and RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.89; moderate quality evidence). However, there was a difference in favour of low-level laser comb for change from baseline in hair count (MD 17.40, 95% CI 9.74 to 25.06; and MD 17.60, 95% CI 11.97 to 23.23; low quality evidence). These studies did not assess QoL and did not report adverse events per treatment arm and only in a generic way (low quality evidence). Low-level laser therapy against sham comparisons in two separate studies also showed an increase in total hair count but with limited further data.Single studies addressed the other comparisons and provided limited evidence of either the efficacy or safety of these interventions, or were unlikely to be examined in future trials. Although there was a predominance of included studies at unclear to high risk of bias, there was evidence to support the efficacy and safety of topical minoxidil in the treatment of FPHL (mainly moderate to low quality evidence). Furthermore, there was no difference in effect between the minoxidil 2% and 5% with the quality of evidence rated moderate to low for most outcomes. Finasteride was no more effective than placebo (low quality evidence). There were inconsistent results in the studies that evaluated laser devices (moderate to low quality evidence), but there was an improvement in total hair count measured from baseline.Further randomised controlled trials of other widely-used treatments, such as spironolactone, finasteride (different dosages), dutasteride, cyproterone acetate, and laser-based therapy are needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 57 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 237 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 2 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Singapore 1 <1%
Unknown 230 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 47 20%
Researcher 33 14%
Unspecified 32 14%
Student > Bachelor 27 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 9%
Other 75 32%
Unknown 1 <1%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 109 46%
Unspecified 45 19%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 5%
Psychology 12 5%
Other 44 19%
Unknown 1 <1%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 49. 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 17 February 2019.
All research outputs
#353,380
of 13,536,188 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#991
of 10,637 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,907
of 264,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#32
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,536,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,637 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% 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 264,678 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 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.