Cited by 19Hair Growth and DisordersLaser Applications in Dentistry and MedicineDermatologic Treatments and Research

Low-Level Laser and LED Therapy in Alopecia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Perez, Sofia M., Vattigunta, Mounika, Kelly, Colin, Eber, Ariel·2025·Dermatologic Surgery

Abstract

Background Low-level laser/LED therapy (LLLT) has been described as a treatment option for alopecia, but no study has comprehensively reviewed its efficacy in multiple alopecia types. Objective To review and evaluate LLLT for various alopecia types. Materials and methods A systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL was conducted to identify studies assessing the effect of LLLT on patients diagnosed with alopecia. Prespecified outcome measure was the change in hair density. Meta-analysis was performed to calculate the standardized mean difference in hair density before and after LLLT compared with placebo. Results Thirty-eight studies were included that described 3,098 patients with androgenetic alopecia (2,930/3,098), scarring alopecia (49/3,098), alopecia areata (50/3,098), telogen effluvium (17/3,098), and chemotherapy-induced alopecia (32/3,098). The mean change in hair density increased significantly in androgenetic alopecia patients after LLLT for 4 to 26 weeks compared with placebo ( 20 weeks: SMD = 1.44; 95% CI [0.97-1.91]; p = .000; I 2 = 80.81%). Change in hair density was reported in 5 studies evaluating other alopecia types; however, statistical information was insufficient for meta-analysis. Conclusion LLLT is a promising treatment option for patients with androgenetic alopecia, but future studies are needed to better understand its efficacy in other alopecia types.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/dss.0000000000004442

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The meta-analysis by Adil and Godwin reported a significant increase in hair density (+17.66 hairs/cm2) with low-level laser therapy for androgenetic alopecia.

    “with the meta-analysis by Adil and Godwin 38 reporting a significant increase in hair density (+17.66 hairs/cm²)”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 48 · Cited by 19

Authors
Perez, S. M., Vattigunta, M., Kelly, C., & Eber, A.
Affiliations
University of Miami (US)
Corresponding author
Perez, Sofia M.
Venue
Dermatologic Surgery
Published
2024-10-15
Volume
51
Issue
2
Pages
179-183
ISSN
  • 1076-0512 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4725
OpenAlex
W4403406319
Cited by
19
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
FWCI
1.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Dermatologic Surgery (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Hair Growth and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatologic Treatments and Research
Keywords
low-level laser therapy, LED therapy, hair loss, androgenetic alopecia, hair density, alopecia areata, scarring alopecia, telogen effluvium, chemotherapy-induced alopecia, hair regrowth
MeSH terms
Alopecia, Hair, Humans, Treatment Outcome, Low-Level Light Therapy

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