Skip to main content
HairCited

Vitamin D deficiency in non-scarring and scarring alopecias: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Tanat Yongpisarn, Kasama Tejapira, Kunlawat Thadanipon, Poonkiat Suchonwanit
Systematic Review Frontiers in nutrition 2024 4 件の引用
PubMed DOI PDF
<\/script>\n
`; }, get iframeSnippet() { const domain = 'haircited.com'; const params = 'pmid\u003D39416654'; return ``; }, get activeSnippet() { return this.method === 'script' ? this.scriptSnippet : this.iframeSnippet; }, copySnippet() { navigator.clipboard.writeText(this.activeSnippet).then(() => { this.copied = true; setTimeout(() => { this.copied = false; }, 2000); }); } }" @keydown.escape.window="open = false" @click.outside="open = false">

Embed This Widget

Style



      
      
    

Widget powered by . Free, no account required.

Study Design

研究タイプ
Meta-analysis
介入
Vitamin D deficiency in non-scarring and scarring alopecias: a systematic review and meta-analysis. None
比較対照
Placebo
効果の方向
Negative
バイアスリスク
Moderate

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have linked vitamin D deficiency (VDD) to the pathogenesis of various alopecia disorders. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate whether patients with alopecia are more likely to have VDD or lower vitamin D levels than controls, and the prevalence of VDD among patients with certain alopecia disorders. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted using PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases from the dates of their inception until September 2024. Studies that reported data allowing for the calculation of odds ratios, mean differences, or correlation coefficients related to vitamin D levels and alopecia were included, while studies without a confirmed diagnosis of alopecia or those involving patients taking vitamin D supplements were excluded. RESULTS: It was found that 51.94% of patients with alopecia areata (AA), 50.38% of patients with female pattern hair loss (FPHL), 47.38% of patients with male androgenic alopecia (MAGA), 53.51% of patients with telogen effluvium (TE), and 38.85% of patients with primary scarring alopecia had VDD. Compared to controls, AA patients had a pooled odds ratio (OR) of VDD of 2.84 (95% confidence interval: 1.89-4.26, I2 = 84.29%, p < 0.01) and a pooled unstandardized mean difference (UMD) of vitamin D levels of -8.20 (-10.28 - -6.12, I2 = 74.25%, p < 0.01) ng/mL. For FPHL patients, a pooled OR of VDD of 5.24 (1.50-18.33, I2 = 81.65%, p < 0.01) and a pooled UMD of vitamin D levels of -15.67 (-24.55 - -6.79, I2 = 91.60%, p < 0.01) ng/mL were found. However, for MAGA, a pooled VDD OR of 4.42 (0.53-36.61, I2 = 88.40%, p < 0.01), and a pooled UMD of vitamin D levels of -2.19 ng/mL (-4.07 - -0.31 ng/mL, I2 = 7.64%, p = 0.37) were found. For TE patients, pooled UMD of vitamin D levels of -5.71 (-10.10 - -1.32) ng/mL were found. CONCLUSION: People with alopecia frequently have VDD; however, only in patients with AA or FPHL was the association of VDD and decreased vitamin D levels statistically significant compared to control. The findings indicate screening for vitamin D could benefit patients with AA or FPHL, potentially addressing vitamin D deficiency. Further study on vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for alopecia is recommended.

Full Text

PDF
Loading PDF...

Figures

Tables

Table 1

Author, yearCountryStudy designGroup (case/control)Mean age (SD)Female (%)Severity of alopecia
Hasanbeyzade and Tunca (2024) (68)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with AA (41)26.80 (7.00)6 (14.60)AT 10 (24.4%), AU 9 (22.0%), patchy AA 11 (26.8%), diffuse AA 11 (26.8%)
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (41)26.90 (6.90)5 (12.20)
AbdElneam et al. (2024) (63)Saudi ArabiaCase–controlPatients with AA (82)25 (3.90)40 (48.80)Localized patchy 38 (46.4%), Multiple patchy 31 (37.8%), Ophiasis 13 (15.8%)
Age-matched healthy controls (81)23.8 (2.80)45 (55.60)
Saleem et al. (2023) (69)PakistanCase–controlPatients with AA (45)22.94 (7.92)18 (40)SALT class; S1 = 7 (15.6%), S2 = 10 (22.2%), S3 = 18 (40%), S4 = 3 (6.7%), S5 = 7 (15.6%), mean SALT score 56.3%§
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (45)23.84 (8.46)18 (40)
Hamidpour et al. (2023) (67)IranDescriptivePatients with AA (402)27.20 (13.40)192 (47.80)Median SALT score 68 (IQR 40–100)
Gupta et al. (2023) (66)IndiaCase–controlPatients with AA (25)27.64 (9.83)8 (32)SALT class; S1 = 20 (80%), S2 = 2 (8%), S3-5 = 3 (12%)
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (25)28.56 (7.95)8 (32)
Fahim et al. (2023) (65)PakistanDescriptivePatients with AA (100)30.50 (8.40)58 (58)Mean SALT score 20.7 ± 5.4
Alsenaid et al. (2023) (64)Saudi ArabiaCase–controlPatients with AA (59)27.10 (9.10)6 (10.20)Moderate 6 (10.2%), severe 9 (15.3%)
Age-matched healthy controls (60)27.4 (10.30)9 (15)
Das (2022) (26)IndiaCase–controlPatients with AA (50)25.07 (7.40)18 (36)SALT class; S1 = 35 (70%), S2 = 10 (20%), S3 = 5 (10%), mean SALT score 22.3%§
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (50)24.48 (6.30)20 (40)
deQueiroz et al. (2022) (27)BrazilCase–controlPatients with AA (7)44.2 (14.90)7 (100)NR
Unmatched controls with other skin conditions (33)38.8 (16.00)37 (100)
Gao et al. (2022) (28)ChinaCase–controlPatients with AA (672)31.28 (14.42)276 (41.08)NR
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (580)30.89 (13.00)238 (41.03)
Goksin (2022) (29)TurkeyDescriptivePatients with AA (218)27.8 (12.30)84 (38.5)AU 7 (3.2%), AT 1 (0.5%)
Lim et al. (2022) (30)USADescriptivePatients with pediatric AA (96)9 (4.40)61 (64)NR
Oner and Akdeniz (2022) (31)TurkeyDescriptivePatients with AA (99)26.1 (12.3)25 (25.3)NR
Tran et al. (2022) (16)USACase–control*Patients with AA (417)45.70 (NR)561 (61.60)NR
Age-, sex-, and race-matched patients (3127)49.403,685 (74.50)
Abedini et al. (2021) (32)IranCase–controlPatients with AA (50)32.48 (12.61)23 (46)Ophiasis 6 (12%), AT 9 (18%), AU 18 (36%)
Age, sex, and BMI-matched healthy controls (50)32.26 (12.32)23 (46)
Alamoudi et al. (2021) (33)Saudi ArabiaDescriptivePatients with AA (177)28.37 (12.68)92 (52)AU 16 (9%), AT 23 (7%)
Conic et al. (2021) (34)USADescriptivePatients with AA (77)37.2 (NR)54 (70.10)NR
Lizarondo et al. (2021) (35)PhilippinesCase–controlPatients with AA (29)31.48 (10.82)19 (65.5)SALT class; S1 = 20 (68.97%), S2 = 5 (17.24%), S3 = 2 (6.90%), S4 = 2 (6.90%), mean SALT score 25.24%§
Age-, sex-, and sun exposure per day-matched healthy controls (29)31.86 (10.51)19 (65.5)
Conic et al. (2020) (36)USACase–control*Patients with pediatric AA (3510)NR1940 (55.3)NR
Unmatched pediatric controls without AA (8310710)NR4,018,940 (48.4)
Zhao et al. (2020) (14)ChinaCase–controlPatients with AA (443)41.26 (14.10)279 (62.98)NR
Age-, sex-, and season-matched healthy controls (2070)41.76 (11.25)1,006 (48.60)
Conic et al. (2019) (37)USADescriptivePatients with AA (18)71.83 (6.34)15 (83.3)NR
El-Ghareeb (2019) (38)EgyptCase–controlPatients with AA (20)NRNRNR
Age-matched healthy controls (20)NRNR
Marahatta et al. (2019) (39)NepalCase–controlPatients with AA (30)28.37 (10.07)14 (48.3)SALT score = 3.56 ± 3.50%
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (30)30.50 (9.03)15 (51.7)
Namdar and Arikan (2019) (40)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with AA (60)31.4 (10.03)30 (50)SALT class; S1 = 43 (71.7%), S2 = 17 (28.3%), mean SALT score 19.44%§
Unmatched controls without chronic or dermatological diseases (61)36.61 (10.08)27 (44.3)
Rehman et al. (2019) (41)IndiaCase–controlPatients with AA (135)26 (12.89)44 (32.59)SALT class; S1 = 52 (38.52%), S2 = 35 (25.93%), S3 = 17 (12.59%), S4 = 11 (8.15%), S5 = 7 (5.19%), mean SALT score 38.09%§
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (135)26 (13.20)44 (32.59)
Siddappa et al. (2019) – adult AA (42)IndiaCase–controlPatients with AA (100)24.52 (10.06)28 (28)SALT class; S1 = 75 (99%), S3 = 1 (1%), mean SALT score 13.14%§
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (100)28.96 (11.49)42 (42)
Siddappa et al. (2019) – pediatric AA (43)IndiaCase–controlPatients with pediatric AA (30)11.13 (4.17)12 (40)NR
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (30)11.46 (4.41)12 (40)
Daroach et al. (2018) (44)IndiaCase–controlPatients with AA (30)28.97 (9.96)19 (63.33)SALT class; S1-2 = 24 (80%), S3-4 = 3 (10%), S5 = 3 (10%), SALT score = 35.8 ± 27.5%
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (30)31.17 (9.43)14 (46.67)
Gade et al. (2018) (45)IndiaCase–controlPatients with AA (45)32.73 (10.43)31 (68.89)Median SALT score (%) 4.23 (3.12–6.33)
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (45)33.98 (8.48)31 (68.89)
Karaguzel et al. (2018) (46)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with pediatric AA (30)10.5 (2.9)20 (66)NR
Age- and sex-matched healthy pediatric control (30)10.5 (2.8)20 (66)
Saniee et al. (2018) (15)IranCase–controlPatients with AA (77)27.38 (11.94)37 (48.1)Mean involved area = 43.51 ± 20.25
Age- and sex-matched normal controls who visited dermatology clinics (112)29.54 (13.65)54 (48.2)
Unal and Gonulalan (2018) (47)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with pediatric AA (20)12.67 (4.16)6 (30)SALT class; S1 = 6 (30%), S2 = 9 (45%), S3 = 5 (25%), S4 = 0, S5 = 0, mean SALT score 35.78%§
Unmatched healthy controls (34)16.54 (0.91)19 (55.88)
Bhat et al. (2017) (48)IndiaCase–controlPatients with AA (50)22.4 (8.6)NRSALT class; S1 = 38 (76%), S2 = 12 (24%), mean SALT score 18.38%§
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls randomly recruited from clinic with no history of AA (35)29.2 (7.6)NR
Conic et al. (2017) (49)USACase–control*Patients with AA (584)35.54 (19.28)400 (68.50)AT 12 (2.05%), AU 19 (3.25%)
Age-matched controls with seborrheic dermatitis without hair loss (172)35.80 (15.56)126 (73.25)
Erpolat et al. (2017) (50)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with AA (41)32.8 (7.5)15 (36.59)NR
Unmatched healthy controls (32)32.7 (7.5)14 (43.75)
Ghafoor and Anwar (2017) (51)PakistanCase–controlPatients with AA (30)23.77 (8.86)18 (60)SALT class; S1 = 4 (13.33%), S2 = 7 (23.33%), S3 = 12 (40%), S4 = 1 (3.33%), S5 = 6 (20%), mean SALT score 57.8%§
Age- and sex-matched healthy volunteers and patients coming to dermatology department for other disorders (30)24.03 (8.62)18 (60)
Narang et al. (2017) (52)IndiaDescriptivePatients with AA (22)30.4 (10.8)10 (45.5)SALT score ranged 8.4–40
Attawa et al. (2016) (53)EgyptCase–controlPatients with AA (23)26.44 (10.87)8 (34.8)SALT class; S1 = 14 (61%), S2 = 3 (13%), S3 + S4 + S5 = 6 (26%), mean SALT score 34.04%§
Unmatched healthy controls (23)29.39 (8.10)9 (39.1)
Bakry et al. (2016) (54)EgyptCase–controlPatients with AA (60)20.7 (10.85)24 (40)Ophiasis 12 (20%), AT/AU 16 (26.7%)
Age-, sex-, FST-, and BMI-matched healthy controls (60)23.71 (7.45)32 (53.3)
Darwish et al. (2016) (55)EgyptCase–controlPatients with AA (30)28.67 (10)17 (56.7)SALT score: S1 = 10 (33.3%), S2 = 7 (23.3%), S3 = 4 (13.3%), S4 = 3 (10%), S5 = 1 (3.3%), S4 B = 3 (10%), S5 B = 2 (6.7%), mean SALT score 39.64%§
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (20)24.8 (6)10 (50)
Fattah and Darwish (2015) (56)EgyptCase–controlPatients with AA (30)26.8 (6.9)12 (40)SALT class; S3 = 15 (50%), S4 = 3 (10%), S5 = 12 (40%), B0 = 27 (90%), B2 = 3 (10%), mean SALT score 79.45%§
Age-, sex-, FST-, approximate daily amount of vitamin D intake-, occupation (indoor or outdoor)-, and time of blood sampling- matched healthy controls (30)25.1 (6.9)12 (40)
Ogrum et al. (2015) (57)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with AA (40)31.23 (7.34)21 (52.5)SALT class; S1 = 35 (87.5%), S2 = 3 (7.5%), S3 = 2 (5%), mean SALT score 16.79%§
Age-, sex-, and FST-matched healthy controls (40)30.58 (7.19)21 (52.5)
Cerman et al. (2014) (13)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with AA (86)32.21 (9.60)30 (42)SALT class; S1 = 41 (83%), S2 = 15 (17%), SALT 14.41 ± 9.92%
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (58)32.55 (9.78)24 (41.38)
Mahamid et al. (2014) (58)IsraelCase–controlPatients with AA (23)24.2 (12.3)9 (39.13)Extensive 5 (21.74%)
Age- and sex-matched controls without AA (20)27 (11.26)7 (35)
D’Ovidio et al. (2013) (59)ItalyCase–controlPatients with AA (70)27.79 (9.12)33 (47.1)Ophiasis 69 (44%), AT/AU 38 (24.5%)
Unmatched healthy controls (70)30.49 (11.06)26 (37.1)
El-Mongy et al. (2013) (60)EgyptCase–controlPatients with AA (156)37.8 (NR)111 (71.15)SALT class; S1 = 30 (42.9%), S2 = 12 (17.1%), S3 + S4 + S5 = 28 (40.0%), mean SALT score 44.83%§
Unmatched healthy controls (148)34.5 (NR)130 (87.84)
Nassiri et al. (2013) (61)IranCase–controlPatients with AA (28)27.75 (7.97)9 (32.14)SALT (%); 0–24 = 6 (21.4%), 25–49 = 4 (14.3%), 50–74 = 1 (3.6%), and 100 = 17 (60.7%), mean SALT score 70.79%§
Unmatched healthy controls (44)33.16 (12.52)28 (63.63)
Yilmaz et al. (2012) (62)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with AA (42)31.1 (8.2)28 (66.67)SALT class; S1 = 30 (71.43%), S2 = 6 (14.29%), S3 = 3 (7.14%), S4 = 2 (4.76%), S5 = 1 (2.38%), mean SALT score 25.13%§
Unmatched healthy controls (42)29.3 (7.4)29 (69.05)

Table 4

Author, yearCountryStudy designGroup (case/control)Mean age (SD)Female (%)Severity of alopecia
Leung et al. (2023) (100)USACase–controlPatients with CCCA (53)51.3 (9.60)53 (100)NR
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (212)50.3 (9.50)212 (100)
Gharaei Nejad et al. (2023) (98)IranDescriptivePatients with LPP (60)43.60 (10.17)44 (73.3)NR
Arasu et al. (2022) (70)AustraliaDescriptivePatients with FFA (100)63 (NR)100 (100)NR
Collins et al. (2022) (99)USADescriptivePatients with CCCA (27)NRNRNR
Conic et al. (2021) (34)USADescriptivePatients with LPP (58)56.6 (NR)55 (94.8)NR
Patients with CCCA (29)55.2 (NR)29 (100)NR
Conic et al. (2019) (37)USADescriptivePatients with LPP (37)69.24 (3.11)37 (100)NR
Patients with FFA (7)68.86 (3.24)7 (100)NR
Patients with CCCA (4)67.25 (1.26)4 (100)NR
Brankov et al. (2018) (97)USACase–controlPatients with LPP (334)54.77 (12.83)311 (93.1)NR
Age- and race-matched controls with seborrheic dermatitis without hair loss (78)52.19 (15.37)62 (79.5)

Table 2

Author, yearCountryStudy designGroup (case/control)Mean age (SD)Female (%)Severity of alopecia
Wang et al. (2024) (86)ChinaCase–controlPatients with MAGA (40)27.3 (5.30)0NR
Age- and gender-matched healthy controls (45)28.3 (4.20)0
Losoya-Jaquez et al. (2024) (25)MexicoDescriptivePatients with pediatric AGA (13)16.08 (1.30)42 (21)NR
Wu et al. (2023) (85)ChinaCase–controlPatients with MAGA (80)36.28 (10.49)0Mild 36 (45%), moderate alopecia 37 (46.3%), severe alopecia 7 (0.09%)
Age-, gender- and BMI-matched healthy controls (60)36.28 (10.98)0
Vandana et al. (2023) (84)IndiaDescriptivePatients with FPHL (24)28.9 (NR)24 (100)NR
Okhovat et al. (2023) (83)USADescriptivePatients with FPHL (54)50.04 (16.40)54 (100)NR
Hailat et al. (2023) (82)PakistanCase–controlPatients with FPHL (72)28.6 (2.40)72 (100)NR
Sex-matched healthy controls (72)NR72 (100)
Arasu et al. (2022) (70)AustraliaDescriptivePatients with FPHL (100)51 (NR)100 (100)NR
deQueiroz et al. (2022) (27)BrazilCase–controlPatients with FPHL (37)54.8 (15.00)37 (100)NR
Unmatched controls with other skin conditions (33)38.8 (16.00)37 (100)
Krysiak et al. (2022) (71)PolandCase–controlPatients with MAGA (72)37 (6.00)0NR
Age-, blood pressure-, BMI-, insulin sensitivity-, and plasma lipids-matched controls without hair loss (75)38 (6.00)0
Oner and Akdeniz (2022) (31)TurkeyDescriptivePatients with AGA (101)25.6 (7.3)25 (24.8)NR
Tran et al. (2022) (16)USACase–control*Patients with AGA (404)NRNRNR
Age-, sex-, and race-matched patients (3127)49.403,685 (74.50)
Conic et al. (2021) (34)USADescriptivePatients with AGA (73)53.2 (NR)65 (89)NR
Danane et al. (2021) (72)IndiaDescriptivePatients with MAGA (50)24 (NR)0NR
El-Tahlawy et al. (2021) (73)EgyptCase–controlPatients with MAGA (30)NR0NR
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (30)NR0
Jasim et al. (2021) (74)IraqCase–controlPatients with FPHL (50)NR50 (100)NR
Unmatched healthy controls (50)NR50 (100)
Kerkemeyer et al. (2021) (75)AustraliaDescriptivePatients with MAGA (31)28.7 (NR)0Sinclair grade; 2.0 = 15 (17.6%), 2.5 = 6 (7.1%), 3.0 = 40 (47.6%), 3.5 = 0 (0.0%), 4.0 = 18 (21.4%), 4.5 = 2 (2.4%), and 5.0 = 3 (3.6%)
Sanke et al. (2020) (76)IndiaCase–controlPatients with MAGA (50)21.17 (3.66)0Hamilton-Norwood grade; III = 14 (25%), IV = 19 (33%), V = 20 (35%), and grade VI = 4 (7%)
Age-, sex-, socioeconomic status, and outdoor exposure-matched healthy controls who attended dermatology department (50)NR0
Zhao et al. (2020) (14)ChinaCase–controlPatients with FPHL (657)32.59 (10.51)657 (100)NR
Patients with MAGA (777)29.89 (7.02)0NR
Age-, sex-, and season-matched healthy controls (2070)41.76 (11.25)1,006 (48.60)
Conic et al. (2019) (37)USADescriptivePatients with FPHL (27)70.26 (4.99)27 (100)NR
Kondrakhina et al. (2019) (77)RussiaCase–controlPatients with MAGA (50)26.2 (5.3)0NR
Age- and origin-matched healthy controls (25)NRNR
Sarac and Koca (2018) (78)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with AGA (58)30.3 (8.8)28 (48.28)NR
Unmatched healthy controls (58)28.5 (10.1)47 (81.03)
Banihashemi et al. (2016) (79)IranCase–controlPatients with FPHL (45)29.11 (7.31)45 (100)NR
Age-, sex-, hours spent under sunlight per day-, and BMI-matched healthy controls (45)28.82 (7.11)45 (100)
Moneib et al. (2014) (80)EgyptCase–controlPatients with FPHL (60)28.67 (10)60 (100)NR
Age-, sex-, FPT-, socioeconomic status-, outdoor exposure- matched heatlhy controls (60)24.8 (6)60 (100)
Rasheed et al. (2013) (81)EgyptCase–controlPatients with FPHL (38)NR38 (100)
Age-, sex-, and FST- matched healthy female controls (40)30.8 (8.56)40 (100)

Table 3

Author, yearCountryStudy designGroup (case/control)Mean age (SD)Female (%)
Vandana et al. (2023) (84)IndiaDescriptivePatients with TE (76)24.40 (NR)76 (100)
Arslan et al. (2023) (96)TurkeyDescriptivePatients with TE (58)27.54 (9.42)840 (86.3)
Chen et al. (2022) (24)USADescriptivePatients with pediatric TE (68)12.3 (NR)67 (88)
deQueiroz et al. (2022) (27)BrazilCase–controlPatients with TE (17)42.8 (14.55)17 (100)
Unmatched controls with other skin conditions (33)38.8 (16.00)37 (100)
Oner and Akdeniz (2022) (31)TurkeyDescriptivePatients with TE (160)27.7 (8.8)156 (97.5)
Yorulmaz et al. (2022) (87)TurkeyDescriptivePatients with TE (1688)26 (NR)2,794 (92.30)
Alizadeh et al. (2021) (88)IranCase–controlPatients with TE (83)35 (NR)83 (100)
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (83)35 (NR)83 (100)
Conic et al. (2021) (34)USADescriptivePatients with TE (121)46.9 (NR)120 (99.2)
Naser et al. (2021) (89)BaghdadCase–controlPatients with TE (60)32.6 (6.47)60 (100)
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls (60)41.3 (4.59)60 (100)
Mohammad et al. (2020) (90)IranCase–controlPatients with TE (50)NR50 (100)
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls who referred to dermatology clinic for cosmetic procedures other than hair loss (50)NR50 (100)
Sokmen (2020) (91)TurkeyDescriptivePatients with TE (151)29 (NR)151 (100)
Conic et al. (2019) (37)USADescriptivePatients with TE (70)71.07 (5.35)68 (97.1)
Cifcia (2018) (92)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with TE (155)30.7 (9.80)149 (96.13)
Age- and sex-matched healthy controls who visited other clinics for health checkup (168)30.76 (8.80)155 (92.26)
Sarac and Koca (2018) (78)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with TE (71)26.6 (8.4)65 (91.55)
Unmatched healthy controls (58)28.5 (10.1)47 (81.03)
Gurel et al. (2017) (93)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with TE (80)26.41 (6.93)80 (100)
Age- and sex-matched controls without hair loss (80)25.79 (7.41)80 (100)
Cheung et al. (2016) (94)USADescriptivePatients with TE (115)NR110 (26.63)
Rasheed et al. (2013) (81)EgyptCase–controlPatients with TE (42)NR42 (100)
Age-, sex-, and FST- matched healthy female controls (40)30.8 (8.56)40 (100)
Karadag et al. (2011) (95)TurkeyCase–controlPatients with TE (63)29.1 (11.9)63 (100)
Sex-matched controls without AA (50)28.4 (9.4)50 (100)

Table 5

Alopecia areataAndrogenetic alopeciaTelogen effluvium
SubgroupNo. of studiesPrevalenceI2 (%)/p-value of Q testNo. of studiesPrevalenceI2 (%)/p-value of Q testNo. of studiesPrevalenceI2 (%)/p-value of Q test
Overall3451.94% (41.54–62.25%)97.48/<0.011647.27% (32.49–62.29%)96.06/<0.011353.51% (37.33–69.33%)97.99/<0.01
Country
Eastern2856.70% (43.04–69.87%)97.88/<0.01964.31% (48.41–78.81%)92.10/<0.01964.42% (49.17–78.33%)97.10/<0.01
Western631.36% (23.51–39.74%)82.73/<0.01725.54% (16.80–35.34%)82.88/<0.01427.56% (13.59–44.07%)88.11/<0.01
Age
Mean age 18–25 years347.01% (1.32–96.78%)370.69% (51.32–86.96%)0
Mean age 25–60 years2954.67% (44.56–64.60%)96.79/<0.011142.07% (25.49–59.60%)96.42/<0.01956.00% (38.63–72.67%)97.70/<0.01
Mean age > 60 years15.56% (0.99–25.76%)114.81% (5.92–32.48%)128.57% (19.32–40.05%)
Unspecified135.00% (18.12–56.71%)168.00% (54.19–79.24%)110.43% (6.07–17.36%)
Severity
Severe cohorts944.36% (19.70–70.54%)98.01/<0.01
Non-severe cohorts1363.71% (47.43–78.58%)95.25/<0.01
Unspecified1244.64% (31.88–57.75%)96.90/<0.01

References

  1. Untitled
  2. Untitled
  3. Untitled
  4. Untitled
  5. Untitled
  6. Untitled
  7. Untitled
  8. Untitled
  9. Untitled
  10. Untitled
  11. Untitled
  12. Untitled
  13. Untitled
  14. Untitled
  15. Untitled
  16. Untitled
  17. Untitled
  18. Untitled
  19. Untitled
  20. Untitled
  21. Untitled
  22. Untitled
  23. Untitled
  24. Untitled
  25. Untitled
  26. Untitled
  27. Untitled
  28. Untitled
  29. Untitled
  30. Untitled
  31. Untitled
  32. Untitled
  33. Untitled
  34. Untitled
  35. Untitled
  36. Untitled
  37. Untitled
  38. Untitled
  39. Untitled
  40. Untitled
  41. Untitled
  42. Untitled
  43. Untitled
  44. Untitled
  45. Untitled
  46. Untitled
  47. Untitled
  48. Untitled
  49. Untitled
  50. Untitled
  51. Untitled
  52. Untitled
  53. Untitled
  54. Untitled
  55. Untitled
  56. Untitled
  57. Untitled
  58. Untitled
  59. Untitled
  60. Untitled
  61. Untitled
  62. Untitled
  63. Untitled
  64. Untitled
  65. Untitled
  66. Untitled
  67. Untitled
  68. Untitled
  69. Untitled
  70. Untitled
  71. Untitled
  72. Untitled
  73. Untitled
  74. Untitled
  75. Untitled
  76. Untitled
  77. Untitled
  78. Untitled
  79. Untitled
  80. Untitled
  81. Untitled
  82. Untitled
  83. Untitled
  84. Untitled
  85. Untitled
  86. Untitled
  87. Untitled
  88. Untitled
  89. Untitled
  90. Untitled
  91. Untitled
  92. Untitled
  93. Untitled
  94. Untitled
  95. Untitled
  96. Untitled
  97. Untitled
  98. Untitled
  99. Untitled
  100. Untitled
  101. Untitled
  102. Untitled
  103. Untitled
  104. Untitled
  105. Untitled
  106. Untitled
  107. Untitled
  108. Untitled
  109. Untitled
  110. Untitled
  111. Untitled
  112. Untitled
  113. Untitled
  114. Untitled
  115. Untitled

Used In Evidence Reviews

Similar Papers