Comment: The quality of evidence is downgraded by study limitations (unclear allocation concealment and blinding) and by imprecise results (wide confidence intervals and few patients).
A Cochrane review [Abstract] 1 included 47 studies with a total of 5 290 subjects. The included trials evaluated a wide range of interventions; 17 studies evaluated minoxidil and 3 studies finasteride. The proportion of participants with clinically significant hair regrowth with minoxidil (1% or 2%, follow-up 24 to 32 weeks) at the end of the study was bigger compared with placebo both as self-rated (26.5% versus 13.9%) and investigator-rated (18.4% versus 7.7%), moderate quality evidence). There was no difference in effect between the minoxidil 2% and 5% with the quality of evidence rated moderate to low (4 studies, 1006 participants). There was not a difference in adverse events.
Finasteride was no more effective than placebo in 3 trials (low quality evidence)(table T1. Two studies (141 participants) evaluated low-level laser comb therapy compared to a sham device. According to the participants it was not more effective than the sham device. However, there was a difference in favour of low-level laser comb for change from baseline in hair count (MD 17.40, 95% CI 9.74 to 25.06; and MD 17.60, 95% CI 11.97 to 23.23; low quality evidence).
| Outcome | Relative effect (95% CI) | Risk with placebo | Risk with finasteride (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The proportion of participants with self-rated clinically significant hair regrowth | RR 0.95 (0.66 to 1.37) | 471 / 1000 | 448 / 1000 (311 to 646) | 137 (1) |
| Proportion of participants with investigator-rated clinically significant hair regrowth | RR 0.77 (0.31 to 1.90) | 186 / 1000 | 143 / 1000 (58 to 353) | 137 (1) |
Date of latest search: 7 July 2015
Primary/Secondary Keywords