Interventions for female pattern hair loss
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Female pattern hair loss, 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 people. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of the available options for the treatment of female pattern hair loss in women. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to October 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library (2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974), PsycINFO (from 1806), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), PubMed (from 1947), Web of Science (from 1945), and reference lists of articles. We also searched several online trials registries for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of interventions for female pattern hair loss in women. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty two trials, comprising 2349 participants, were included. A wide range of interventions were evaluated, with 10 studies investigating the different concentrations of minoxidil. Pooled data from 4 studies indicated that a greater proportion of participants (121/488) treated with minoxidil reported a moderate increase in their hair regrowth when compared with placebo (64/476) (risk ratio (RR) = 1.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.42 to 2.43). In 7 studies, there was an important increase of 13.28 in total hair count per cm(2) in the minoxidil group compared to the placebo group (95% CI 10.89 to 15.68). There was no difference in the number of adverse events in the twice daily minoxidil and placebo intervention groups, with the exception of a reported increase of adverse events (additional hair growth on areas other than the scalp) with minoxidil (5%) twice daily. Most of the other comparisons consisted of single studies. These were assessed as high risk of bias: They did not address our prespecified outcomes and provided limited evidence of either the efficacy or safety of these interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although more than half of the included studies were assessed as being at high risk of bias, and the rest at unclear, there was evidence to support the effectiveness and safety of topical minoxidil in the treatment of female pattern hair loss. Further direct comparison studies of minoxidil 5% applied once a day, which could improve adherence when compared to minoxidil 2% twice daily, are still required. Consideration should also be given to conducting additional well-designed, adequately-powered randomised controlled trials investigating several of the other treatment options.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Clinical experience suggests that a combination of oral contraceptives, topical eflornithine and cosmetic treatment might be the most effective treatment approach for hirsutism in NC CAH.
“Clinical experience suggests that a combination of oral contraceptives, topical eflornithine and cosmetic treatment (shaving, chemical depilatories, plucking, tweezing, threading, waxing or epilation therapy, electrolysis and intense pulsed light) might be the most effective treatment approach (434).”
From Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia—Current Insights in Pathophysiology, Diagnostics, and Management (2022) · cites this paper as [434]
Cites
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305 · see citing works
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
Lexchin, J., Bero, L. A., Djulbegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 · Cited by 2,147 · see citing works
How to formulate research recommendations
Brown, P., Brunnhuber, K., Chalkidou, K., Chalmers, I., Clarke, M., Fenton, M., Forbes, C., Glanville, J., Hicks, N. J., Moody, J., et al. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38987.492014.94 · Cited by 381 · see citing works
A system for rating the stability and strength of medical evidence
Treadwell, J. R., Tregear, S. J., Reston, J. T., & Turkelson, C. M. (2006) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-6-52 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Interventions for hirsutism (excluding laser and photoepilation therapy alone)
van Zuuren, E. J., Fedorowicz, Z., Carter, B., & Pandis, N. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010334.pub2 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Definition, Aetiology, Diagnosis and Treatment
Escobar-Morreale, H. F. (2018) · Nature Reviews Endocrinology · doi:10.1038/nrendo.2018.24 · Cited by 2,083 · see citing works
Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia—Current Insights in Pathophysiology, Diagnostics, and Management
Claahsen - van der Grinten, H. L., Speiser, P. W., Ahmed, S. F., Arlt, W., Auchus, R. J., Falhammar, H., Flück, C. E., Guasti, L., Huebner, A., Kortmann, B. B. M., et al. (2022) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/endrev/bnab016 · Cited by 556 · see citing works
Interventions for hirsutism (excluding laser and photoepilation therapy alone)
van Zuuren, E. J., Fedorowicz, Z., Carter, B., & Pandis, N. (2015) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010334.pub2 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- van Zuuren, E. J., Fedorowicz, Z., Carter, B., Andriolo, R. B., & Schoones, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Technology Bahrain (BH)
- Bangor University (GB)
- Universidade do Estado do Pará (BR)
- Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
- Venue
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
- Published
- 2012-05-16
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- CD007628-CD007628
- ISSN
- 1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6457957
- OpenAlex
- W2942719587
- Cited by
- 64
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 6
- Type
- reference entry
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2016-05-26)
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Hair Growth and Disorders
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Bipolar Disorder and Treatment
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Nail Diseases and Treatments
- Keywords
- female pattern hair loss, androgenetic alopecia, minoxidil, topical minoxidil, oral minoxidil, finasteride, spironolactone, difluoromethylornithine, hair regrowth, treatment efficacy and safety, women's health, psychological impact of hair loss, risk of bias in trials, randomized controlled trials
- MeSH terms
- Alopecia, Drug Administration Schedule, Female, Hair, Humans, Minoxidil, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review