A Critical Assessment of the Evidence for Low-Level Laser Therapy in the Treatment of Hair Loss
Gupta AK, Foley KA
Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.] · 23 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Systematic review (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2016-09-10 · Dermatol Surg · vol. 43 · issue 2 · pp. 188–197
- Publisher
- Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
- Cited
- 51 citations · more than 95% of similar papers · 5.0× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 57 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Hair Growth and Disorders · Dermatologic Treatments and Research · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
- Keywords
- Medicine, Low level laser therapy, Minoxidil, Randomized controlled trial, Hair loss, Clinical trial, Regimen, Laser therapy, Evidence-based medicine, Surgery, Alternative medicine, Dermatology, Internal medicine, Pathology
- MeSH
- humans, alopecia, treatment outcome, evidence-based medicine, randomized controlled trials as topic, low-level light therapy
2 authors
From CA
- Aditya Kumar Gupta · correspondingUniversity of Toronto; Mediprobe Research (Canada)
- Kelly A. FoleyMediprobe Research (Canada)
Abstract
Background
Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is currently in use to stimulate hair growth and is quickly gaining in popularity due to the ease of use and absence of side effects. In 2015 alone, the number of LLLT devices with the Food and Drug Administration clearance has doubled.
Objective
To consolidate evidence and establish which data are still required for the widespread acceptance of LLLT for hair loss therapy.
Methods and materials
A thorough search of the PubMed database was conducted to obtain studies investigating LLLT for androgenetic alopecia in men and women.
Results
Nine trials were identified for comb and helmet/cap devices, five of which were randomized controlled trials. Data comparison across LLLT trials and with traditional hair loss therapy (minoxidil, finasteride) was not straight forward because there was a lack of visual evidence, sample sizes were low, and there were large variations in study duration and efficacy measurements.
Conclusion
There are a number of unanswered questions about the optimum treatment regimen, including maintenance treatment and the long-term consequences of LLLT use. Moving forward, protocols should be standardized across trials. Moreover, it is recommended that future trials include visual evidence and trial duration be expanded to 12 months.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.