Cited by 64Hair Growth and DisordersBipolar Disorder and TreatmentNail Diseases and Treatments

Interventions for female pattern hair loss

Open access
van Zuuren, Esther J, Fedorowicz, Zbys, Carter, Ben, Andriolo, Régis B, Schoones, Jan·2012·Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1002/14651858.cd007628.pub3

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
Published
2012-05-16
Issue
5
Pages
CD007628-CD007628
ISSN
1361-6137 (ISSN-L)
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
Open access
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