Cochrane · systematic review · CD007628
Interventions for female pattern hair loss
van Zuuren, EJ, Fedorowicz, Z, Schoones, J · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
32
current version
GRADE rated
25
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 7 · 21.9%Very low 1 · 3.1%Low 17 · 53.1%Moderate 7 · 21.9%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Show all 2 versionsMinoxidil versus placebo
Population: women with FPHL
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
The proportion of participants with self‐rated clinically significant hair regrowth at the end of the study Minoxidil vs placebo | RR 1.93 [1.51, 2.47] | 6 studies · 1148 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Change in quality of life Minoxidil vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 260 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Minoxidil vs placebo | RR 1.24 [0.82, 1.87] | 4 studies · 727 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of participants with investigator‐rated clinically significant hair regrowth at the end of the study Minoxidil vs placebo | RR 2.35 [1.68, 3.28] | 7 studies · 1181 participants | Moderate |
Change from baseline in total hair count Minoxidil vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 8 studies · 1242 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, publication bias |
Degree of hair shedding from baseline to the end of the study Minoxidil vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 380 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Cosmetic appearance of the hair or participant satisfaction Minoxidil vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 260 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in quality (or pattern) of hair regrowth (e.g. thickness) Minoxidil vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 372 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Minoxidil 2% versus minoxidil 5%
Population: women with FPHL
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants with self‐rated clinically significant hair regrowth Minoxidil 2% vs minoxidil 5% | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 322 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in quality of life Minoxidil 2% vs minoxidil 5% | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 209 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Adverse events Minoxidil 2% vs minoxidil 5% | RR 1.02 [0.91, 1.2] | 4 studies · 1006 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Proportion of participants with investigator‐rated clinically significant hair regrowth Minoxidil 2% vs minoxidil 5% | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 586 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Change from baseline to study conclusion in total hair count Minoxidil 2% vs minoxidil 5% | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 631 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Degree of hair shedding from baseline to the end of the study ‐ not measured Minoxidil 2% vs minoxidil 5% | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Cosmetic appearance of the hair or participant satisfaction Minoxidil 2% vs minoxidil 5% | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 322 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias |
Change in quality (or pattern) of hair regrowth (e.g. thickness) Minoxidil 2% vs minoxidil 5% | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 322 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Finasteride versus placebo
Population: women with FPHL
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
The proportion of participants with self‐rated clinically significant hair regrowth at the end of the study Finasteride vs placebo | RR 0.95 [0.66, 1.37] | 1 study · 137 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in quality of life ‐ not measured Finasteride vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse events Finasteride vs placebo | RR 1.03 [0.45, 2.34] | 1 study · 137 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Proportion of participants with investigator‐rated clinically significant hair regrowth Finasteride vs placebo | RR 0.77 [0.31, 1.9] | 1 study · 137 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change from baseline to study conclusion in total hair count Finasteride vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 231 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, inconsistency |
Degree of hair shedding from baseline to the end of the study Finasteride vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 137 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Cosmetic appearance of the hair or participant satisfaction Finasteride vs placebo | RR 0.78 [0.4, 1.53] | 1 study · 137 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in quality (or pattern) of hair regrowth (e.g. thickness) ‐ not measured Finasteride vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Low‐level laser comb versus sham device
Population: women with FPHL
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Proportion of participants with self‐rated clinically significant hair regrowth Low‐level laser comb vs sham device | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 141 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in quality of life ‐ not measured Low‐level laser comb vs sham device | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Adverse events Low‐level laser comb vs sham device | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 141 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participants with investigator‐rated clinically significant hair regrowth ‐ not measured Low‐level laser comb vs sham device | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Change from baseline to study conclusion in total hair count Low‐level laser comb vs sham device | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 122 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Degree of hair shedding from baseline to the end of the study ‐ not measured Low‐level laser comb vs sham device | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |
Cosmetic appearance of the hair or participant satisfaction Low‐level laser comb vs sham device | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 141 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Change in quality (or pattern) of hair regrowth (e.g. thickness) ‐ not measured Low‐level laser comb vs sham device | no estimate extracted | 0 studies · 0 participants | Ungraded |