PlumX Metrics
Embed PlumX Metrics

Evidence-based treatments for female pattern hair loss: A summary of a Cochrane systematic review

British Journal of Dermatology, ISSN: 0007-0963, Vol: 167, Issue: 5, Page: 995-1010
2012
  • 39
    Citations
  • 0
    Usage
  • 79
    Captures
  • 2
    Mentions
  • 11
    Social Media
Metric Options:   Counts1 Year3 Year

Metrics Details

  • Citations
    39
  • Captures
    79
  • Mentions
    2
    • References
      2
      • Wikipedia
        2
  • Social Media
    11
    • Shares, Likes & Comments
      11
      • Facebook
        11

Review Description

Female pattern hair loss (FPHL) or androgenic alopecia is the most common type of hair loss affecting women with reduced hair density and can have a serious psychological impact. It is characterized by progressive replacement of slow cycling terminal hair follicles by miniaturized, rapidly cycling vellus hair follicles. The frontal hair line may or may not be preserved. The aim of this review was to assess the evidence for the effectiveness and safety of the treatments available for FPHL. Searches included: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, LILACS and several ongoing trials registries (October 2011). Randomized controlled trials in women with FPHL were identified. Twenty-two trials, comprising 2349 participants, were included. A range of interventions was evaluated, with 10 studies examining varying concentrations of minoxidil. Pooled data from four studies indicated that a greater proportion of participants treated with minoxidil reported a moderate increase in their hair regrowth compared with placebo (relative risk 1·86, 95% confidence interval 1·42-2·43). There was no difference between the number of adverse events experienced in the twice daily minoxidil and the placebo intervention groups, except for a reported increase with minoxidil 5% twice daily. Single studies accounted for most of the other comparisons, which were assessed as either having high risk of bias and/or they did not address the prespecified outcomes for this review and provided limited evidence of either the effectiveness or safety of these interventions. Further well-designed, adequately powered randomized controlled trials investigating other treatment options are still required. © 2012 The Authors. BJD © 2012 British Association of Dermatologists.

Provide Feedback

Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know