| Leavitt 200910 | Who: Men, Norwood IIa–Vn = 110 completed (randomized 2:1) | Device: HairMax LaserComb, 9 beams at 655 nm26 weeks | Result: Terminal hair density rose significantly more than with sham (p < 0.0001); no serious adverse events | Funding and ties: Not stated in the abstract |
|---|
| Kim 201313 | Who: 40 adults with pattern hair lossn = 40 | Device: Helmet, 630, 650 and 660 nm18 min daily, 24 weeks | Result: Greater hair density and hair diameter than sham; investigators saw a difference, subjects did not | Funding and ties: Not stated in the abstract |
|---|
| Lanzafame 201311 | Who: Men 18–48, Norwood IIa–V, skin types I–IVn = 44 (41 completed) | Device: TOPHAT655 helmet: 21 lasers at 655 nm + 30 LEDs25 min every other day, 16 weeks | Result: Hair counts up 67.2% vs 28.4% with sham (P = 0.001); no adverse events | Funding and ties: Same device and team as the 2014 trial |
|---|
| Jimenez 2014 (four trials)14 | Who: 128 men, Norwood IIa–V; 141 women, Ludwig-Savin I-4 to II-2; skin types I–IVn = 269 (225 analysed) | Device: HairMax LaserComb, 7, 9 or 12 beams at 635–655 nm8–15 min, 3 times a week, 26 weeks | Result: Terminal hair density up 18.4 to 25.7 per cm² vs 1.6 to 9.4 with sham; no serious adverse events | Funding and ties: Lexington (HairMax) partly funded the trials and supplied the devices; 94.7% of participants were white |
|---|
| Lanzafame 201412 | Who: Women 18–60, Ludwig-Savin I-2 to II-2, skin types I–IVn = 47 (42 completed) | Device: TOPHAT655 helmet: 21 lasers at 655 nm + 30 LEDs25 min every other day, 16 weeks | Result: Hair count in a 2.85 cm² area up 100.3 vs 23.9 with sham (P < 0.0001); no adverse events | Funding and ties: Funded by Apira Science, the device maker; one author has an ownership interest |
|---|
| Suchonwanit 201915 | Who: 20 men and 20 women, Thailandn = 40 (36 completed) | Device: RAMACAP laser helmet24 weeks | Result: Hair density and diameter better than sham (p = 0.002 and 0.009); temporary shedding and scalp itch reported | Funding and ties: Device developed by the authors’ institute; the authors call their sham inappropriate |
|---|
| Thomas 202516 | Who: Adults 18–65 with pattern hair lossn = 160 (69 per protocol) | Device: LED cap: 625 + 660 nm red, 425 nm blue, or both10 min daily; primary result at 16 weeks | Result: No single cap beat sham; the three caps pooled gave 28.5 more hairs per cm² than sham (p = .033) | Funding and ties: Several authors work for the device companies (emitBio, KNOW Bio) |
|---|
| Esmat 201717 | Who: 45 women with female pattern hair lossn = 45 | Device: iGrow helmet vs minoxidil 5% vs both; no sham25 min 3 times a week, 4 months | Result: Laser and minoxidil gave comparable results; the combination did best on Ludwig grade and satisfaction | Funding and ties: Not stated in the abstract |
|---|