Efficacy and safety of combinational therapy using topical minoxidil and microneedling for the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Androgenetic alopecia is a widespread condition that is the most common type of hair loss affecting approximately 58% and 40% of men and women by the age of 50, respectively. Patients have been known to experience severe distress due to androgenetic alopecia, including anxiety, low self-esteem, and depression. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the efficacy of combination therapy using topical minoxidil and microneedling compared to topical minoxidil alone. This systematic review of randomized controlled trials was carried out using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42023391164). The literature search was performed using Scopus, Cochrane, Embase, and the National Institutes of Health's United States National Library of Medicine from inception through January 20, 2022. Randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of combinational therapy and monotherapy using microneedling and minoxidil on patients with clinically diagnosed androgenetic alopecia were included after screening titles, abstracts, and full texts. Two independent reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and appraised the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool. Ten randomized controlled trials, including 466 patients, were selected for this review and eight studies were ultimately included in the meta-analysis. All eight studies displayed a statistically significant increase in total hair count (standard mean difference [SMD], 1.76; 95% CI, 1.26-2.26; P<0.00001); however, the evidence did not support a statistically significant increase in hair diameter (SMD, 0.82; 95% CI, -0.01–1.65; P=0.05). No scarring nor serious adverse events were reported in any of the studies. The findings of this meta-analysis strongly support the utilization of a multimodal therapeutic approach of minoxidil and microneedling for hair growth in patients with androgenetic alopecia. However, variations in factors such as rating scale measurements, microneedling methods, and areas of treatment may have resulted in confounding. Further randomized controlled, large-sample trials employing rigorous methodologies are needed to gain a more comprehensive understanding regarding treatment efficacy, namely the impact of combinational therapy on hair diameter.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".