Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35107565›Full record

ArticleJAMA dermatology2022

Relative Efficacy of Minoxidil and the 5-α Reductase Inhibitors in Androgenetic Alopecia Treatment of Male Patients: A Network Meta-analysis.

Aditya K Gupta, Maanasa Venkataraman, Mesbah Talukder, Mary A Bamimore

Open access · greenAbstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 80 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aditya K GuptaMediprobe Research Inc, London, Ontario, Canada.
Maanasa VenkataramanMediprobe Research Inc, London, Ontario, Canada.
Mesbah TalukderMediprobe Research Inc, London, Ontario, Canada.
Mary A BamimoreMediprobe Research Inc, London, Ontario, Canada.
Mediprobe Research (Canada) · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceThere are knowledge gaps regarding the relative efficacy of 3 commonly used drugs for androgenetic alopecia (AGA), namely, minoxidil and the two 5-α reductase inhibitors dutasteride and finasteride.

objectiveTo examine the relative efficacy of any dose and administration route of minoxidil, dutasteride, and finasteride for the treatment of male AGA. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches were performed in PubMed on March 5, 2021, without date restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies included those that investigated monotherapy with any dose and administration route of minoxidil, dutasteride, and finasteride. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data on the mean (SD) difference and sample size were used for the bayesian network meta-analyses. League tables and surface under the cumulative ranking curve values were used to examine the relative efficacy of the interventions. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Study end points were change in total and terminal hair count after 24 and 48 weeks of therapy. The 4 end points were quantified in hairs per square centimeters.

resultsThe PubMed search yielded 848 records; after the 2 stages of screening, 23 studies were eligible for quantitative analyses. Mean (SD) age of patients ranged from 22.8 (3.3) years to 41.8 (12.3) years. The greatest increase in total hair count at 24 weeks (ie, first end point) was with 0.5 mg/d of dutasteride, which was significantly more efficacious than 1 mg/d of finasteride (mean difference, 7.1 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 5.1-9.3 hairs/cm2) and minoxidil (0.25 mg/d [mean difference, 23.7 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 9.5-38.0 hairs/cm2], 5 mg/d [mean difference, 15.0 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 3.9-26.1 hairs/cm2], and 2% solution [mean difference, 8.5 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 4.8-12.3 hairs/cm2]). The greatest increase in terminal hair count at 24 weeks (ie, second end point) was with 5 mg/d of minoxidil, which was significantly more efficacious than the 0.25-mg/d dose (mean difference, 43.6 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 29.7-57.7 hairs/cm2) and its topical forms (in 2% [mean difference, 29.3 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 21.1-37.5 hairs/cm2] and 5% [mean difference, 29.8 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 19.7-39.8 hairs/cm2]); 5 mg/d of minoxidil was significantly more efficacious than 1 mg/d of finasteride (mean difference, 10.4 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 2.2-18.6 hairs/cm2). The greatest increase in total hair count at 48 weeks (ie, third end point) was with 5 mg/d of finasteride, which was significantly more efficacious than 2% topical minoxidil (mean difference, 20.7 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 9.5-31.9 hairs/cm2). The greatest increase in terminal hair count at 48 weeks (ie, fourth end point) was with 1 mg/d of finasteride, which was significantly more effective than topical minoxidil (in 2% [mean difference, 32.1 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 23.9-40.3 hairs/cm2] and 5% [mean difference, 26.2 hairs/cm2; 95% CI, 16.2-36.2 hairs/cm2]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: As efficacy data from head-to-head trials accumulate, there could be a better sense of the relative efficacy of the different doses of the 5-α reductase inhibitors and minoxidil. The findings of this meta-analysis contribute to the comparative effectiveness literature for AGA therapies with regard to the compared interventions.

Indexed as

5-alpha Reductase InhibitorsMinoxidilAdultAlopeciaBayes TheoremDutasterideFinasterideHumansMaleTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult5-alpha Reductase InhibitorsDutasterideFinasterideMinoxidil

Identifiers

PMID35107565
PMCPMC8811710
OpenAlexW4210339609

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.