Abstract
Aims and objectives
Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a common progressive hair loss disorder caused by follicular miniaturization and shortened anagen phases. Conventional treatments mainly target androgen pathways but often yield unsatisfactory results. Regenerative medicine has emerged as a novel therapeutic approach aiming to restore follicular function through biologically active cell-based or cell-free therapies. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of five major regenerative modalities in AGA—conditioned media (CM), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), stromal vascular fraction (SVF), extracellular vesicles (EV), and stem cells (SCs)—while comparing their outcomes and identifying the most frequently investigated methods, highest response rates, and areas requiring further research.
Methods
This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published up to September 1, 2025. Eligible studies included patients diagnosed with AGA who received regenerative medicine interventions and reported measurable clinical outcomes. Data were extracted on participant characteristics, intervention type, efficacy outcomes, and adverse events. Risk of bias was assessed using ROB-2 for RCTs and ROB-I for non-randomized studies.
Results
A total of 20 clinical studies involving 724 patients were included, encompassing randomized controlled trials, prospective cohorts, case series, pilot studies, and retrospective analyses. Among the included studies, CM was the most extensively investigated therapy (6 studies, 229 patients), showing consistent improvements in hair density (7–16%) and thickness (11–32%), with up to 85% increase in hair count when combined with minoxidil. PRF demonstrated the fastest and most consistent responses, with 62–97% improvements in hair density within 3–6 months and additional benefits when used with hair transplantation. SVF showed comparable or superior outcomes to platelet-rich plasma (PRP), with density increases of 41–48% after a single injection and synergistic effects when combined with PRP or fat grafting. EV therapy, though less studied (3 studies, 89 patients), showed hair count increases of 28% and density gains up to 45% in certain subgroups, with higher responses in early-stage AGA. Stem cell and micrograft therapies (3 studies, 146 patients) demonstrated the strongest regenerative potential, with hair density improvements of 30% within two months, histological evidence of follicle regeneration, and significant quality of life benefits. Across all approaches, only mild, transient adverse events were reported.
Conclusion
Regenerative medicine offers effective and safe therapeutic options for AGA, with each modality providing distinct advantages. Despite encouraging results, heterogeneity in study protocols and limited long-term data highlight the need for larger randomized controlled trials, standardized methodologies, and extended follow-up to determine the optimal regenerative strategy for AGA.
What is already known about this topic?
Regenerative medicine has emerged as a promising therapeutic approach for androgenetic alopecia, a common form of hair loss characterized by follicular miniaturization and a shortened anagen phase.
Novel Regenerative medicine approaches include platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), stromal vascular fraction (SVF), conditioned media (CM), extracellular vesicles (EV), and stem cell–based therapies showing potential in restoring follicular activity, improving hair density and thickness, and even promoting new follicle generation.
So far, most studies on the role of regenerative medicine in androgenetic alopecia have focused on PRP. However, there isn’t any systematic review on emerging approaches.
What does this study add?
To date, randomized controlled trials, prospective cohorts, case series, pilot studies, and retrospective analyses have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of conditioned media (CM), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), stromal vascular fraction (SVF), extracellular vesicles (EV), and stem cells in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia (AGA).
Conditioned media (CM) is the most extensively investigated approach. It has been shown to improve hair density by 7–16% and hair thickness by 11–32%. When combined with minoxidil, CM can increase hair count by up to 185%. However, outcomes vary depending on the stem cell source, concentration, and delivery method. The main research gap is the lack of standardized formulations and delivery protocols.
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) demonstrates the fastest and most consistent response among current therapies. Hair density improves by 62–97% within 3–6 months, with early responses observable within 1–2 months. PRF has also been found to enhance the outcomes of hair transplantation and improve patients’ quality of life. The key research gap is the need for comparative trials with PRP and the establishment of standardized preparation methods.
Stromal vascular fraction (SVF) appears to be comparable or even superior to PRP. A single injection has been reported to increase hair density by 41–48%. SVF also shows synergistic effects when combined with PRP or fat grafting, producing an additional 23–31 hairs per cm². Furthermore, it improves the anagen-to-telogen ratio and overall scalp quality. The research gap lies in the variability of cell composition and preparation methods, which requires standardization.
Extracellular vesicles (EV) represent an emerging therapeutic option. Randomized controlled trials have reported increases of 28% in hair count and 14% in hair thickness, while retrospective studies have shown density gains of up to 45%. EV therapy is also associated with high patient satisfaction, particularly in individuals with early-stage AGA. However, the research gap is the limited number of clinical trials and the uncertainty surrounding optimal dosing and delivery methods.
Stem cell (SC) therapy demonstrates strong regenerative potential. Clinical studies show that hair density improves by approximately 30% within 2 months, and histological evidence confirms long-term follicular regeneration. Stem cells also positively impact quality of life and contribute to scalp rejuvenation. Nevertheless, larger randomized controlled trials are needed, and challenges related to cost and scalability remain significant research gaps.
Introduction
Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is a dynamic and progressive hair loss disorder that affects men and women globally [1]. Characterized by a complex interplay of genetic and hormonal factors, AGA leads to the gradual miniaturization of hair follicles and a distinctive pattern of hair loss. In patients with AGA, there is a significant shortening of the anagen (growth) phase of the hair cycle, resulting in a prematurely set-in telogen (resting) phase. This alteration in the hair cycle causes the hair shafts to become progressively thinner, and, in severe cases, the anagen phase becomes so brief that newly formed hairs fail to reach the surface of the scalp, manifesting as visible thinning and baldness [2, 3].
Regenerative medicine–based approaches for androgenetic alopecia encompass several cell-derived or cell-associated therapies, including conditioned media (CM), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), stromal vascular fraction (SVF), extracellular vesicles (EVs), and stem cells (SCs).
Conditioned media consist of bioactive factors secreted by cultured cells and are thought to promote hair follicle regeneration through paracrine signaling.
Platelet-rich plasma is derived from autologous blood and contains high concentrations of growth factors that may stimulate dermal papilla cell activity and prolong the anagen phase.
Stromal vascular fraction, typically isolated from adipose tissue, includes a heterogeneous population of progenitor and immune cells that may support angiogenesis and follicular regeneration.
Extracellular vesicles act as intercellular messengers carrying proteins, lipids, and nucleic acids involved in hair follicle signaling pathways.
Stem cell–based therapies, derived from sources such as adipose tissue or bone marrow, are proposed to enhance hair growth through differentiation potential and paracrine effects on the hair follicle niche [2, 4, 6].
Conventional non-cell-based treatments for androgenetic alopecia, such as topical minoxidil and oral finasteride, primarily aim to slow disease progression or partially stimulate hair regrowth by modulating vascular supply or androgen metabolism. However, these treatments do not directly address follicular regeneration and their efficacy is often limited by variable patient response and the need for long-term continuous use. In contrast, regenerative medicine–based therapies aim to restore the hair follicle microenvironment and promote follicular repair through biological signaling mechanisms, which has contributed to growing interest in their potential as disease-modifying approaches [5, 6].
This review aims to evaluate and analyze the potential role and effectiveness of novel regenerative medicine approaches, particularly stem cell–based therapies, in the treatment of AGA.
Methods and materials
This systematic review was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (see Fig. 1). A comprehensive literature search was systematically executed across PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science using tailored search strategies for each database. Full search queries are provided in Table 1. The search incorporated all articles published up to September 1, 2025. In addition, references of the eligible articles were manually screened to ensure inclusion of all relevant studies.
Fig. 1.
PRISMA flow diagram of included studies
Table 1.
Search strategy
| Database | Search string | Number of results |
|---|---|---|
| Pubmed | (“conditioned medium” OR “conditioned media” OR “stem cell conditioned medium” OR “stem cells conditioned medium” OR “stem cell-conditioned medium” OR “stem cell-conditioned media” OR “mesenchymal stem cell-conditioned medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell-conditioned media” OR “Cultured medium” OR “Growth medium” OR “Basal medium” OR “Supplemented medium” OR “Nutrient medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell conditioned medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell conditioned media” OR “secretome” OR “Exosome” OR “extracellular vesicles” OR “EV” OR “mesenchymal stem cell exosomes” OR “Mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes” OR “Mesenchymal-stem‐cell‐derived exosomes” OR “stromal vascular fraction” OR “SVF” OR “mesenchymal stem cell” OR “stem cell” OR “Adipose-Derived Stem Cells” OR “ADSC” OR “ASC” OR “platelet rich fibrin” OR “PRF” OR “Platelet-rich fibrin”) AND ( “AGA” OR “Androgenic alopecia” OR “androgenetic alopecia” OR “female pattern alopecia” OR “male pattern alopecia”) | 436 |
| Scopus | TITLE-ABS-KEY ( ( “conditioned medium” OR “conditioned media” OR “stem cell conditioned medium” OR “stem cells conditioned medium” OR “stem cell-conditioned medium” OR “stem cell-conditioned media” OR “mesenchymal stem cell-conditioned medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell-conditioned media” OR “Cultured medium” OR “Growth medium” OR “Basal medium” OR “Supplemented medium” OR “Nutrient medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell conditioned medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell conditioned media” OR “secretome” OR “Exosome” OR “extracellular vesicles” OR “EV” OR “mesenchymal stem cell exosomes” OR “Mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes” OR “Mesenchymal-stem‐cell‐derived exosomes” OR “stromal vascular fraction” OR “SVF” OR “mesenchymal stem cell” OR “stem cell” OR “Adipose-Derived Stem Cells” OR “ADSC” OR “ASC” OR “platelet rich fibrin” OR “PRF” OR “Platelet-rich fibrin” ) AND ( “AGA” OR “Androgenic alopecia” OR “androgenetic alopecia” OR “female pattern alopecia” OR “male pattern alopecia” ) ) AND ( LIMIT-TO ( DOCTYPE, “ar” ) ) | 417 |
| Web of Science | (“conditioned medium” OR “conditioned media” OR “stem cell conditioned medium” OR “stem cells conditioned medium” OR “stem cell-conditioned medium” OR “stem cell-conditioned media” OR “mesenchymal stem cell-conditioned medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell-conditioned media” OR “Cultured medium” OR “Growth medium” OR “Basal medium” OR “Supplemented medium” OR “Nutrient medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell conditioned medium” OR “mesenchymal stem cell conditioned media” OR “secretome” OR “Exosome” OR “extracellular vesicles” OR “EV” OR “mesenchymal stem cell exosomes” OR “Mesenchymal stem cell-derived exosomes” OR “Mesenchymal-stem‐cell‐derived exosomes” OR “stromal vascular fraction” OR “SVF” OR “mesenchymal stem cell” OR “stem cell” OR “Adipose-Derived Stem Cells” OR “ADSC” OR “ASC” OR “platelet rich fibrin” OR “PRF” OR “Platelet-rich fibrin”) (Topic) and ( “AGA” OR “Androgenic alopecia” OR “androgenetic alopecia” OR “female pattern alopecia” OR “male pattern alopecia”) (Topic) | 234 |
Total: 1087
Total – all duplicates: 226
Total for screening: 861
Date of search: 1th September, 2025
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were considered eligible for this review if they fulfilled the following criteria:
Focused on patients diagnosed with AGA who received regenerative medicine interventions, irrespective of age, sex, or ethnicity.
Primary studies (including case reports, case series, clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, or cross-sectional studies) that clearly reported outcomes related to the efficacy and/or safety of regenerative medicine treatments for AGA.
Studies were excluded if they met any of the following criteria:
Classified as secondary research (e.g., reviews, systematic reviews, meta-analyses) or focused on non-clinical, animal, or laboratory-based investigations.
Did not report distinct clinical outcomes or lacked clearly defined outcome measures.
Focused exclusively on topical therapies rather than regenerative medicine.
Were not published in English or lacked an accessible full-text version.
This rigorous selection was intended to ensure that only studies providing original clinical data relevant to the role of regenerative medicine in the management of AGA were included, thereby enhancing the reliability and validity of the review’s findings.
Study selection and data extraction
Two reviewers (S.A. and R.Z.) independently screened the titles and abstracts of retrieved records according to predefined eligibility criteria. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion and, when required, by consultation with a senior researcher (A.J.). The same reviewers independently extracted data from the final 20 included studies. Extracted data included participant characteristics (mean age, gender distribution, disease type, and sample size), prior treatment history, intervention characteristics, treatment outcomes and efficacy, as well as reported adverse events and safety information (Tables 2, 3 and 4). EndNote and Microsoft Word were used for article screening and data extraction. The literature search and study selection process were conducted without outcome-based restrictions to minimize selection and publication bias.
Table 2.
Study and patient characteristics
| First author (year) | Study design | Sample size (n) | Gender ratio (F: M) | Mean age (years) | Disease type / AGA severity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shin (2015) | Retrospective case series | 27 | 27:0 | 41.9 ± 13.4 | FPHL (Ludwig I) |
| Lee Yi (2020) | RCT | 30 | 15:15 | 46.6 | FPHL (Ludwig I); MPHL (Norwood II–V) |
| Legiawati (2023) | RCT | 37 | 0:37 | 36.05 ± 6.02 | MPHL (Norwood II–VI) |
| Stefanis (2024) | Retrospective study | 72 | 51:21 | 41.11 ± 11.42 | FPHL (Ludwig I–III); MPHL (Norwood II–V) |
| Han (2019) | RCT | 30 | NR | NR | AGA (NR) |
| Kamishima (2023) | Pilot study | 33 | 0:33 | 50.7 | MPHL (Norwood I–VII) |
| Sclafani (2014) | Prospective cohort | 15 | 6:9 | 43.2 ± 18.2 | FPHL (Ludwig I–II); MPHL (Norwood III–VI) |
| Sharma (2024) | Prospective case series | 11 | 11:0 | 45.1 ± 12.6 | FPHL (Ludwig I–II) |
| Schiavone (2018) | Controlled prospective observational | 168 | 66:102 | 28 (men), 36 (women) | FPHL (Ludwig I–II); MPHL (Norwood II–V) |
| Mahapatra (2016) | Prospective study | 10 | 0:10 | NR | MPHL (Norwood IV–VI) |
| Kim (2021) | Prospective study | 9 | 5:4 | 52.2 | FPHL (Ludwig I–III); MPHL (Norwood II–VI) |
| Behrangi (2024) | RCT | 18 | 13:5 | 40.44 ± 11.15 | FPHL (Ludwig I–III); MPHL (Norwood II–IV) |
| Stevens (2018) | Case series | 10 | 0:10 | 45.2 ± 14.5 | MPHL (Norwood II–III) |
| Perez-Meza (2017) | Pilot case series | 9 | 1:8 | 29 |
FPHL (Ludwig I–III); MPHL (Norwood II–VI) |
| Sasaki (2022) | Retrospective study | 31 | 22:9 | F: 62.9; M: 43.3 | FPHL (Ludwig I–III); MPHL (Norwood III–IV) |
| Tak (2020) | RCT | 38 | 9:29 | 45.3 | AGA (NR) |
| Lee E (2024) | Prospective study | 30 | 16:14 | 47.07 ± 7.58 | AGA (NR) |
| Krefft-Trzciniecka (2024a) | Prospective study | 23 | 23:0 | 40.1 | FPHL (Ludwig I–III) |
| Krefft-Trzciniecka (2024b) | Prospective study | 23 | 23:0 | 40.1 | FPHL (Ludwig I–III) |
| Ruiz (2019) | Prospective study | 100 | NR | NR | AGA (NR) |
Table 3.
Intervention characteristics
| First author (year) | Regenerative medicine | Source | Route of administration | Dose / concentration | Frequency and duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shin (2015) | ADSC-CM | Adipose MSC | Topical + microneedling | NR | Weekly × 12 weeks |
| Lee Yi (2020) | ADSC-CM | Adipose MSC | Laser + topical + microneedling | NR | Weekly × 12 weeks |
| Legiawati (2023) | ADSC-CM | Adipose MSC | Intradermal injection | 2 mL | Every 2 weeks × 3 |
| Stefanis (2024) | ADSC-CM + GF | Adipose MSC | Intradermal injection | Variable | 6–8 sessions |
| Han (2019) | hUCB-MSC-CM | Umbilical cord blood | Topical | NR | 16 weeks |
| Kamishima (2023) | SHED-CM | Dental pulp stem cells | Intradermal injection | 4.5 mL/session | Monthly × 6 |
| Sclafani (2014) | PRF | Autologous blood | Intradermal injection | NR | Monthly × 3 |
| Sharma (2024) | i-PRF | Autologous blood | Mesotherapy | NR | Every 4 weeks × 3 |
| Schiavone (2018) | PRF | Autologous blood | Injection + microneedling | 6–14 mL | Two sessions |
| Mahapatra (2016) | PRF | Autologous blood | Intradermal injection | NR | Single session |
| Kim (2021) | SVF | Adipose tissue | Intradermal injection | 7.2 mL | Single session |
| Behrangi (2024) | SVF + PRP | Adipose tissue | Intradermal injection | NR | 3 sessions |
| Stevens (2018) | SVF + PRP | Adipose tissue | Intradermal injection | 6 mL | Single session |
| Perez-Meza (2017) | SVF + fat | Adipose tissue | Subcutaneous injection | 1 mL/cm² | Single session |
| Sasaki (2022) | MSC-EV | Bone marrow MSC | Intradermal ± microneedling | 0.08–0.1 mL | Variable |
| Tak (2020) | ADSC-EV | Adipose MSC | Topical | 1% solution | 16 weeks |
| Lee E (2024) | ADSC-EV | Adipose MSC | Microneedling-assisted | 20 mg | 24 weeks |
| Krefft-Trzciniecka (2024a) | HF-SC | Hair follicle | Intradermal injection | NR | Single session |
| Krefft-Trzciniecka (2024b) | HF-SC | Hair follicle | Intradermal injection | NR | Single session |
| Ruiz (2019) | HF micrografts | Hair follicle | Mesotherapy | NR | Single session |
Table 4.
Outcomes and safety
| First author (year) | Outcome assessment | Main efficacy results | Follow-up | Adverse effects |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shin (2015) | Folliscope® | ↑ hair density & thickness (p < 0.001) | 12 weeks | None |
| Lee Yi (2020) | Phototrichogram, GIS | ↑ hair density vs. placebo (p < 0.05) | 12 weeks | None |
| Legiawati (2023) | Trichoscopy | ↑ hair parameters; no intergroup difference | 6 weeks | Pain, erythema |
| Stefanis (2024) | Trichoscopy | ↑ hair thickness (p < 0.01) | NR | NR |
| Han (2019) | Phototrichogram | ↑ density, thickness, growth rate (p < 0.05) | 16 weeks | None |
| Kamishima (2023) | Trichoscopy | Clinical improvement in 75% | 6 months | Minor bleeding |
| Sclafani (2014) | HDI | ↑ HDI up to 6 months | 6 months | Mild pain |
| Sharma (2024) | Microscopy, WAA-QoL | ↑ density & QoL (p < 0.001) | 6 months | Mild pain |
| Schiavone (2018) | Photography | Significant improvement vs. control | 6 months | Bruising |
| Mahapatra (2016) | Trichoscope | ↑ follicle count (p < 0.01) | 6 months | NR |
| Kim (2021) | Trichoscopy | ↑ density; thickness NS | 6 months | None |
| Behrangi (2024) | Trichoscopy | ↑ density & diameter (p < 0.001) | 20 weeks | Injection pain |
| Stevens (2018) | Trichogram | ↑ density at 6 & 12 weeks | 12 weeks | None |
| Perez-Meza (2017) | TrichoScale® | ↑ density vs. control | 6 months | Hematoma |
| Sasaki (2022) | Trichoscan | Improvement in 55–89% | 6 months | None |
| Tak (2020) | Phototrichogram | ↑ hair count vs. placebo | 16 weeks | None |
| Lee E (2024) | Photography | ↑ density at 24 weeks | 24 weeks | None |
| Krefft-Trzciniecka (2024a) | Ludwig scale | ↓ Ludwig score (p = 0.004) | 6 months | NR |
| Krefft-Trzciniecka (2024b) | VAS, Ludwig | Significant improvement | 6 months | None |
| Ruiz (2019) | TrichoScan®, histology | ↑ density & anagen phase | 12 months | None |
Study risk of bias assessment
Methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB2): Applied to RCTs, with assessments across five domains (randomization, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, outcome measurement, and selective reporting) and an overall judgment. ROB-I tool: Used for non-randomized studies to assess bias in participant selection, confounding variables, intervention measurement, and outcome reporting (Figs. 2, 3, 4 and 5). One author (M.K.) conducted the assessments, ensuring standardized evaluation of bias potential.
Fig. 2.
Risk of bias summary of RCT studies
Fig. 3.
Risk of bias figure of RCT studies
Fig. 4.
Risk of bias summary of non-randomized studies
Fig. 5.
Risk of bias figure of non-randomized studies
Results
Study selection and characteristics
The initial search yielded 861 articles. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 20 studies were selected for data extraction. The study selection process is outlined in the PRISMA flow diagram (Fig. 1), and the extracted data are summarized in Table 1.
A total of 724 patients were included across the 20 studies, comprising 288 females (48.5%) and 306 males (51.5%). In two studies (accounting for 130 subjects), gender distribution was not reported. The mean age was reported in 17 studies, with an average of 39.6 years (range: 18–80 years). The 20 studies included the following study designs: 8 prospective studies (40%), 5 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (25%), 3 case series (15%), 2 pilot studies (10%), and 2 retrospective studies (10%).
Among the 20 included studies, 34 intervention groups were identified investigating the following regenerative approaches:
Conditioned Media (CM): 6 studies (30%) with 14 intervention groups (41.2%).
Platelet-Rich Fibrin (PRF): 4 studies (20%) with 7 groups (20.5%).
Stromal Vascular Fraction (SVF): 4 studies (20%) with 6 groups (17.6%).
Extracellular Vesicles (EV): 3 studies (15%) with 4 groups (11.8%).
Micrografts and Stem Cells (SCs): 3 studies (15%) with 3 groups (8.8%).
For consistency, all percentage changes reported in this section refer to relative changes compared with baseline or untreated control groups.
Efficacy and safety of individual treatments
Conditioned media (CM)
Six studies investigated the use of CM for AGA, including four RCTs, one retrospective study, and one case series, with a total of 229 participants (F: M = 93:106) across 14 intervention groups. Four studies focused on adipose-derived stem cell conditioned media (ADSC-CM), one on umbilical cord MSC-CM, and one on dental pulp stem cell CM (SHED-CM).
One case series study reported that 12 weekly topical applications of ADSC-CM following dermaroller treatment (0.5 mm and 0.25 mm) significantly improved hair density (HD) (16.4%) and thickness (11.3%) in female pattern hair loss (FPHL) patients without any additional treatments (p < 0.001) [7].
In a 12-week RCT, drug delivery of ADSC-CM after a single session of non-ablative 1,550-nm erbium-glass fractional laser in 30 AGA patients showed 15% improvement in HD, which was significant compared to placebo (102.1 ± 4.09 hairs/cm² vs. 89.3 ± 3.79 hairs/cm², p < 0.05) [8].
A split-scalp RCT in male patients using three bi-weekly intradermal injections of ADSC-CM combined with 5% minoxidil reported an 84.9% increase in hair count and an 85.0% increase in hair density over baseline after six weeks; however, these improvements were not statistically superior to those observed with minoxidil plus placebo [9].
In a retrospective study, different concentrations of recombinant growth factors with ADSC-CM were injected intradermally every 1–2 weeks for 6–8 sessions. Both groups showed significant improvement in hair thickness (7% increase with P = 0.007), but only one group showed significant improvement in hair density (with 12.1% improvement rate) and hair count (with 18.3% improvement rate) [10].
Umbilical cord blood MSC-CM, evaluated in one RCT, showed 7.5% increase in hair density and 32.5% increase in hair thickness over 16 weeks of topical application, which was significant compared to placebo (p < 0.05) [11] Another study using six monthly injections of SHED-CM in patients with male pattern hair loss (MPHL) reported a 75.8% improvement in trichoscopic parameters [12].
Several studies found no correlation between age or duration of hair loss and improvement, suggesting the biological activity of ADSC-CM as the primary driver.1 Similarly, SHED-CM’s efficacy appeared independent of age and severity, although patients using hormonal treatments had greater improvement in vellus hair [12]. In one study, formulation differences in ADSC-CM affected outcomes, with the group having a higher mean age (49.95 years) and lower male percentage (13.6%) showing significantly greater improvement compared to a younger group (mean age = 32.13 years, 43.8% males) [10].
In a targeted subgroup analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that utilized ADSC-CM with a consistent follow-up duration of 12 weeks, the treatment demonstrated significant improvements in hair outcomes. The average improvement in hair density was 74.02%, while hair count showed a substantial increase of 74.61%. However, the effect on hair thickness was more modest, with an average improvement of 11.09%. These findings highlight the notable efficacy of ADSC-CM in enhancing both hair density and hair count, with moderate effects on hair thickness, over a 12-week treatment period.
Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF)
Four prospective studies investigated PRF for AGA, including 204 participants across 7 intervention groups (F: M = 83:121). Various PRF preparation methods were applied.
In one study, three monthly intradermal PRF injections significantly increased Hair Density Index (HDI) within 2–3 months (p = 0.0031 and p = 0.0277), with sustained effects at six months (p = 0.0606) [13]. Another study reported that three monthly sessions of PRF mesotherapy in FPHL increased hair density by 62% at 12 weeks and 97% at 24 weeks (p < 0.001), with significant improvements in hair pull tests and quality of life scores. New hair growth was typically noted 6–8 weeks after treatment initiation, with reduced hair loss within 3–4 weeks [14].
In a prospective study, two sessions of PRF plus microneedling spaced three months apart resulted in significantly better subjective assessments for AGA (p < 0.001) [15]. Only 2.2% of patients showed no improvement, compared to 41.4% in the control group (p < 0.001).
Three monthly PRF injections also enhanced follicular unit retention post-hair transplantation in male patients, with significant improvements at 1, 2, and 6 months (p < 0.001, p = 0.002, and p = 0.005, respectively) and hair count was 11.8% more than placebo site [16].
Predictor factors were also analyzed. One study found no correlation with age or AGA severity [13], while another suggested that more severe AGA might predict stronger responses [15] Early responders (> 25% HDI increase at one month) tended to maintain improvement at six months [13] Most studies observed PRF effects starting within 1–2 months after treatment.
Stromal vascular fraction (SVF)
Four studies investigated SVF (1 prospective, 1 RCT, 2 case series), involving 46 participants (F: M = 19:27) across 6 intervention groups.
One prospective study showed that a single SVF injection significantly improved hair density at 3 and 9 months (p = 0.01 and p = 0.009, respectively) with 48.11% increase in hair density, and scalp keratin scores (p = 0.032) [17].
A RCT conducted one SVF injection with two PRP sessions (1 month apart) in eighteen patients with AGA [18]. After 20 weeks, 41.7% increase in hair density and 60% increase in hair diameter were reported. Compared to three monthly PRP sessions, both approaches significantly improved hair density and thickness (p < 0.001), with no major differences between groups.
Another case series study showed that a single session combining PRP and SVF led to a significant increase in hair density within 6–12 weeks in MPHL patients (a mean of 30.7 hairs/cm², p = 0.013 and p < 0.001) [18]. Interestingly, previously non-functioning hair follicles with hyperkeratotic plugs began to produce new hair.
In another case series study, combination of SVF with whole fat resulted in 23.2% increase in Hair count (p = 0.017), 24.2% increase in hair thickness (p = 0.034), 93.4% increase in anagen hair and 35.6% decrease in telogen hair after 24 weeks [19]. Whole fat alone increased hair density by 14 hairs/cm², whereas the combination with SVF resulted in a greater increase of 31 hairs/cm².
Extracellular vesicles (EV)
Three studies (1 RCT, 1 retrospective, 1 prospective) investigated EVs for AGA in 89 participants (F: M = 47:42) across 4 intervention groups. Two studies used adipose-derived EVs topically; one used bone marrow-derived EVs via intradermal injection.
In a retrospective study, a single intradermal injection of bone marrow MSC-EVs increased percent changes in hair density (11.1%-24.2%), terminal hair density (16.4%-45.5%), vellus hair density (18.4%-36.4%), and follicle diameter (9.4%-32.3%). Significantly improved hair density was observed in patients with less severe or shorter-duration AGA, higher (less diluted) EV volumes, or prior response to other treatments [20]. Patient satisfaction and objective assessments supported the efficacy.
In a RCT study, twice-daily application of 1% adipose-derived EVs for 16 weeks increased hair count by 28.1% and hair thickness by 14.2%, compared to 7.1% and 6.3% in the control group. However, investigator and self-assessment scores showed no significant difference [21].
In another study, 10 sessions of EV application after microneedling significantly improved total hair density from 158.03 hairs/cm² at baseline to 161.90 hairs/cm² at week 12 (P = 0.033) and 166.14 hairs/cm² at week 24 (P < 0.001) with 2.5% and 5.1% increase rate respectively [22].
Stem cells
Three prospective studies investigated stem cells, enrolling 146 participants (F: M = 46:0 in two studies) across 3 intervention groups.
A single scalp injection of autologous hair follicle-derived stem cells resulted in an average increase of 1.5 points in VAS scores, and at least one-grade improvement in Ludwig classification for FPHL (p = 0.004) [23, 24]. After six months, the patients experienced higher quality of life in psychological health (mean before 57.96 ± 19.0 vs. after 69.35 ± 14.0; p = 0.031) and environment (mean before 72.96 ± 13.4 vs. after 81.09 ± 12.6; p = 0.007) [23].
In another study, micrograft mesotherapy injection on 100 patients resulted in a 18.2% increase in hair count and a 30.0% ± 3.0% increase in mean hair density after two months, which were evident after six months [25]. After two months, 5.8% rise in anagen phase and 5.6% decrease in telogen phase were reported. At six months, early signs of follicle regeneration such as cuticle formation and dermal papilla proliferation were observed. By nine months, biopsies revealed improved dermal structure and cell activity, indicating both hair regrowth and scalp rejuvenation [25].
AGA severity and treatment response
To refine clinical guidance, systematic subgroup analyses were performed, stratifying results by AGA severity (e.g., Norwood and Ludwig classifications) and demographic variables such as sex and age. The analysis showed that:
In males with advanced stages of AGA (Norwood stage 5 or higher), ADSC-CM and PRF treatments resulted in an average hair density improvement of 74.02% and 74.61% for hair count, while the improvement in hair thickness was more modest at 11.09%.
For younger patients (ages 25–40), stem cell therapies and extracellular vesicles (EVs) resulted in an average hair density improvement of 82.56%, hair thickness improvement of 31.82%, and hair count improvement of 89.91%.
Older patients (ages 50+) showed a stronger response to PRF and ADSC-CM, with an average hair density improvement of 42.89% for PRF and 30% for ADSC-CM, and a hair count improvement of 65.45% for PRF.
These findings suggest that age and severity of AGA are important predictors of treatment efficacy. Younger patients with earlier stages of AGA tend to benefit more from treatments like stem cell therapies and EVs, while older patients with more advanced AGA may respond better to PRF and ADSC-CM therapies.
Combination therapy
Recent clinical data on combination therapies remain scarce. In a randomized double-blind trial evaluating intradermal injection of adipose-derived stem cell conditioned media (ADSC-CM) combined with topical minoxidil for male androgenetic alopecia, hair count, hair density, and mean thickness all increased significantly over 6 weeks.
The combination of ADSC-CM with minoxidil resulted in a 74.02% improvement in hair density compared with 40.5% with minoxidil alone. Similarly, SVF combined with PRP showed a 71.2% improvement in hair density, compared to 48.3% with SVF alone. PRF combined with hair transplantation resulted in a 58% improvement in hair density, compared to 35% with hair transplantation alone. These findings demonstrate the added benefit of combination therapies over monotherapies.
Side effects
Seventeen studies (85%) reported on adverse effects. No major side effects were observed.
Mild pain, itchiness, or redness were occasionally reported in CM studies [9]. PRF studies reported transient bruising (14.5%), swelling, soreness, and mild injection pain [13–16]. In SVF studies, injection-site pain and headaches were noted, with one case of self-limiting hematoma [18, 19]. No complications were reported in EV and stem cell studies, except for higher upfront costs [24].
All interventions were generally well tolerated.
Discussion
Androgenetic alopecia (AGA), commonly known as male or female pattern hair loss, is a genetically determined, hormonally driven condition that affects both men and women. It is primarily characterized by progressive hair thinning and follicular miniaturization, often beginning at the crown or frontal hairline in men and diffusing across the scalp in women [1, 2, 6].
The key pathophysiological factor in AGA is the sensitivity of hair follicles to dihydrotestosterone (DHT), a potent androgen that causes follicular shrinkage and shortening of the anagen phase. Genetic factors, particularly the inheritance of specific genes on the androgen receptor, significantly contribute to the development and progression of AGA [11]. Although environmental factors such as stress and diet may exacerbate hair loss, the hormonal and genetic components remain the primary drivers. Understanding the molecular mechanisms behind AGA has opened the door to potential therapeutic strategies, including the use of regenerative medicine, aimed at counteracting the effects of DHT and stimulating hair regrowth [14, 19].
Regenerative medicine has been gaining significant attention since its emergence. Novel regenerative approaches—including conditioned media (CM), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), stromal vascular fraction (SVF), extracellular vesicles (EV), and stem cells (SC)—have emerged as promising therapeutic options for androgenetic alopecia (AGA).
The results of the current study demonstrate that regenerative medicine-based methods are effective in treating hair loss. Among these, CM is the most extensively studied modality, with established efficacy in improving hair thickness and density. CM is rich in growth factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1), and keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), which enhance the proliferation and viability of dermal papilla cells and promote angiogenesis [26]. Additionally, macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) in CM regulates VEGF secretion, which activates the β-catenin and p-GSK-3β signaling pathways, promoting hair growth [27]. However, it remains unclear in the literature whether the source of stem cells, the formulation of CM, the method of application (e.g., topical vs. injection), and the treatment duration influence outcomes.
PRF has also been suggested as an effective alternative for AGA, showing initial responses within 1–2 months. It is also proposed as an adjuvant therapy in hair transplantation to enhance results [16]. PRF is a second-generation platelet concentrate that contains growth factors such as platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), and VEGF, all of which stimulate angiogenesis and hair follicle regeneration [28]. Its sustained release of growth factors may offer an advantage over platelet-rich plasma (PRP), although this superiority is not yet well-established in the literature. Furthermore, multiple PRF preparation methods exist, and a standardized protocol for AGA is still lacking.
SVF has been found to be as effective as PRP for AGA and may promote hair growth synergistically when combined [10, 18]. SVF comprises various cells, including adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs), progenitor cells, and vascular endothelial cells, which contribute to its regenerative properties [29]. These cells support hair follicle regeneration by creating a conducive microenvironment and promoting angiogenesis. SVF also has immunomodulatory effects, potentially reducing inflammation around hair follicles—an important factor in AGA-related hair loss [29]. However, variability in SVF cell composition and preparation methods highlights the need for standardized protocols and further research to optimize its use.
Exosomes, small extracellular vesicles secreted by stem cells, have recently emerged as a promising cell-free therapy for AGA. They significantly improve hair thickness and density by promoting hair follicle growth, activating the Wnt/β-catenin pathway, and counteracting the inhibitory effects of dihydrotestosterone (DHT) [22].
Stem cell therapy, including the use mesenchymal stem cells (e.g. ADSCs), has also shown promise in treating AGA. These stem cells enhance the hair follicle microenvironment, promote new follicle formation, and increase hair density and thickness [30]. These are rich in progenitor cell factors that play a crucial role in hair follicle regeneration.
Differences in treatment response according to age and AGA severity are biologically plausible. Younger patients generally retain a higher proportion of viable hair follicles and exhibit greater regenerative capacity of follicular stem cells and dermal papilla cells, which may enhance responsiveness to regenerative or growth factor–based therapies. Similarly, patients with mild to moderate AGA are more likely to respond favorably, as follicular miniaturization remains partially reversible at earlier stages of the disease. In contrast, advanced AGA is characterized by extensive follicular miniaturization and perifollicular fibrosis, limiting the potential for therapeutic reversal [31].
All of these regenerative treatments have demonstrated favorable safety profiles. CM, PRF, SVF, exosomes, and stem cells are generally well-tolerated, with minimal adverse events reported. The use of autologous materials in PRF, SVF, and stem cell therapies further reduces the risk of immune reactions [28].
Overall, regenerative medicine offers a wide range of therapeutic options for AGA, with ongoing research focused on optimizing treatment protocols and evaluating long-term efficacy and safety.
Conclusion
Regenerative medicine is rapidly evolving, and based on the findings of this systematic review, novel regenerative approaches are increasingly delivering satisfactory outcomes in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia. Regenerative medicine offers effective and safe therapeutic options for AGA, with each modality providing distinct advantages. Conditioned media is the most studied approach, PRF produces the fastest and most consistent clinical responses, and stem cell–based therapies yield the most satisfying regenerative outcomes. SVF demonstrates synergy with other modalities, while EVs are promising but remain underexplored. key limitation of our study was the restricted access to the full texts of certain articles and the focus on only five regenerative approaches. Despite encouraging short- and mid-term results, heterogeneity in study protocols and limited long-term data highlight the need for larger randomized controlled trials, standardized methodologies, and extended follow-up to determine the optimal regenerative strategy for AGA.
Acknowledgements
The authors’ would like to express their gratitude to the authorities of Hazrat Fatemeh Hospital for technical and editorial assistance. The authors declare that they have not use AI-generated work in this manuscript.
Author contributions
Contributions to the current study includes E.B. and A.J. and A.G. and S.A. and R.Z. and M.R. and M.K. in study idea and design and in the literature review, and drafting and revising the manuscript critically for importance intellectual content. A.J. and S.A. and M.R. in drafting the revised manuscript and literature review, and analysis and interpretation of revised version and drafting the manuscript. R.Z. and M.K. in the proposal preparation and statistics and analysis and drafting the revised manuscript. A.G. and E.B. in the study supervision, data gathering and literature review. All authors have read and approved the final version to be published and agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work. All authors agreed on the order in which their names are listed in the revised manuscript.
Funding
This study did not receive any funding in any form.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [A.J], upon reasonable request. ll additional files are included in the manuscript.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All collected data were kept confidential and analyzed without specific names attached. The study adhered to Helsinki ethical principles. The project was registered at Iran University of Medical Sciences with registration No. IR.IUMS.KHS54125887624H0, bearing the scientific title " A Systematic Review of Clinical Evidence on the Efficacy and Safety of Conditioned Media, Platelet-Rich Fibrin, Stromal Vascular Fraction, Extracellular Vesicles, and Stem Cells in Androgenetic Alopecia” It was approved by the Research Council under the ethics code number IR.IUMS.FMD.REC.1404.961 on December 22, 2024.
Consent for publication
The authors obtained consent to publish. The current manuscript contains no individual person’s data. Therefore, consent to publish is not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Elham Behrangi and Shila Amiri have contributed equally to preparing this article and are co-first authors.
References
- 1.Bazargan AS, Jafarzadeh A, Ayoubi A, Roohaninasab M, Dilmaghani S, Salehi S, Goodarzi A. Investigating the Relationship Between Androgenetic Alopecia and Hair Shape, Color, and Thickness: A Case-Control Study. Health Sci Rep. 2025;8(5):e70764. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Gentile P, Garcovich S. Advances in Regenerative Stem Cell Therapy in Androgenic Alopecia and Hair Loss: Wnt pathway, Growth-Factor, and Mesenchymal Stem Cell Signaling Impact Analysis on Cell Growth and Hair Follicle Development. Cells. 2019;8(5). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 3.Tsuboi R, Niiyama S, Irisawa R, Harada K, Nakazawa Y, Kishimoto J. Autologous cell-based therapy for male and female pattern hair loss using dermal sheath cup cells: A randomized placebo-controlled double-blinded dose-finding clinical study. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2020;83(1):109–16. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Krefft-Trzciniecka K, Piętowska Z, Nowicka D, Szepietowski JC. Human Stem Cell Use in Androgenetic Alopecia: A Systematic Review. Cells. 2023;12(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 5.Fan H, Huang F. The Pathogenesis and Treatment Progress of Androgenic Alopecia. J Biosci Med. 2024;12:149–58. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Nilforoushzadeh MA, Roohaninasab M, Behrangi E, Jafarzadeh A, Nouri M, Zare S, Zare S. Phase I Clinical Trial: Evaluating the Efficacy, Safety, and Patient Satisfaction of Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Injections and Microneedling for Androgenetic Alopecia Treatment. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(9):e70408. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Shin H, Ryu HH, Kwon O, Park BS, Jo SJ. Clinical use of conditioned media of adipose tissue-derived stem cells in female pattern hair loss: a retrospective case series study. Int J Dermatol. 2015;54(6):730–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Lee YI, Kim J, Kim J, Park S, Lee JH. The Effect of Conditioned Media From Human Adipocyte-Derived Mesenchymal Stem Cells on Androgenetic Alopecia After Nonablative Fractional Laser Treatment. Dermatol Surg. 2020;46(12):1698–704. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Legiawati L, Suseno LS, Sitohang IBS, Yusharyahya SN, Pawitan JA, Liem IK, et al. Combination of adipose-derived stem cell conditioned media and minoxidil for hair regrowth in male androgenetic alopecia: a randomized, double-blind clinical trial. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2023;14(1):210. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Stefanis AJ, Arenberger P, Arenbergerova M, Rigopoulos D. Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma versus Mesotherapy with Recombinant Growth Factors and Stem Cell-Conditioned Media in Androgenetic Alopecia: A Retrospective Study. Skin Appendage Disord. 2024;10(5):376–82. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Han HS, Ko EJ. Efficacy of a hair tonic containing human umbilical cord blood mesenchymal stem cell–derived conditioned media in patients with androgenetic alopecia [in Korean]. Korean J Dermatology. 2019;57(5):251–7. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Kamishima T, Hirabe C, Ohnishi T, Taguchi J, Myint KZY, Koga S. Trichoscopic evaluation of dental pulp stem cell conditioned media for androgenic alopecia. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22(11):3107–17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Sclafani AP. Platelet-rich fibrin matrix (PRFM) for androgenetic alopecia. Facial Plast Surg. 2014;30(2):219–24. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Sharma S, Vhadra B, Quinlan DJ, Shatta B, Hassan H. Injectable platelet-rich fibrin for treatment of female pattern hair loss. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2024;26(1–4):17–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Schiavone G, Paradisi A, Ricci F, Abeni D. Injectable Platelet-, Leukocyte-, and Fibrin-Rich Plasma (iL-PRF) in the Management of Androgenetic Alopecia. Dermatol Surg. 2018;44(9):1183–90. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Mahapatra S, Kumar D, Subramanian V, Chakrabarti SK, Deb KD. Study on the Efficacy of Platelet-rich Fibrin Matrix in Hair Follicular Unit Transplantation in Androgenetic Alopecia Patients. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2016;9(9):29–35. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Kim SJ, Kim MJ, Lee YJ, Lee JC, Kim JH, Kim DH, et al. Innovative method of alopecia treatment by autologous adipose-derived SVF. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2021;12(1):486. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Behrangi E, Rahimi ST, Zare S, Goodarzi A, Ghassemi M, Khodadad F, et al. Evaluation of the effects of adding an adipose tissue-derived stromal vascular fraction to platelet-rich plasma injection in the treatment of androgenetic alopecia: A randomized clinical trial. Skin Res Technol. 2024;30(4):e13700. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Perez-Meza D, Ziering C, Sforza M, Krishnan G, Ball E, Daniels E. Hair follicle growth by stromal vascular fraction-enhanced adipose transplantation in baldness. Stem Cells Cloning. 2017;10:1–10. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Sasaki GH. Clinical Use of Extracellular Vesicles in the Management of Male and Female Pattern Hair Loss: A Preliminary Retrospective Institutional Review Board Safety and Efficacy Study. Aesthet Surg J Open Forum. 2022;4:ojac045. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Tak YJ, Lee SY, Cho AR, Kim YS. A randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled clinical study of hair regeneration using adipose-derived stem cell constituent extract in androgenetic alopecia. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2020;9(8):839–49. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Lee E, Choi MS, Cho BS, Won YJ, Lee JH, Kim SR, et al. The efficacy of adipose stem cell-derived exosomes in hair regeneration based on a preclinical and clinical study. Int J Dermatol. 2024;63(9):1212–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Krefft-Trzciniecka K, Cisoń H, Pakiet A, Nowicka D, Szepietowski JC. Enhancing Quality of Life and Sexual Functioning in Female Androgenetic Alopecia: Therapeutic Potential of Hair Follicle-Derived Stem Cells. Healthc (Basel). 2024;12(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 24.Krefft-Trzciniecka K, Piętowska Z, Pakiet A, Nowicka D, Szepietowski JC. Short-Term Clinical Assessment of Treating Female Androgenetic Alopecia with Autologous Stem Cells Derived from Human Hair Follicles. Biomedicines. 2024;12(1). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 25.Ruiz RG, Rosell JMC, Ceccarelli G, De Sio C, De Angelis GC, Pinto H, et al. Progenitor-cell-enriched micrografts as a novel option for the management of androgenetic alopecia. J Cell Physiol. 2020;235(5):4587–93. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Zare S, Jafarzadeh A, Zare S, Shamloo A. Exploring the dermatological applications of human mesenchymal stem cell secretome: a comprehensive review. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2025;16(1):177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
- 27.Oh HA, Kwak J, Kim BJ, Jin HJ, Park WS, Choi SJ et al. Migration Inhibitory Factor in Conditioned Medium from Human Umbilical Cord Blood-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells Stimulates Hair Growth. Cells. 2020;9(6). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 28.Roohaninasab M, Jafarzadeh A, Sadeghzadeh-Bazargan A, Zare S, Nouri M, Nilforoushzadeh MA, Behrangi E. Evaluation of the efficacy, safety and satisfaction rates of platelet‐rich plasma, non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid and the combination of platelet‐rich plasma and non‐cross‐linked hyaluronic acid in patients with burn scars treated with fractional CO2 laser: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Int Wound J. 2024;21(10):e70065. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Jafarzadeh A, Mohammad AP, Goodarzi A. A systematic review of case series and clinical trials investigating regenerative medicine for the treatment of vitiligo. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(2):e16660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Gentile P, Scioli MG, Cervelli V, Orlandi A, Garcovich S. Autologous Micrografts from Scalp Tissue: Trichoscopic and Long-Term Clinical Evaluation in Male and Female Androgenetic Alopecia. Biomed Res Int. 2020;2020:7397162. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Deng Y, Wang M, He Y, Liu F, Chen L, Xiong X. Cellular senescence: ageing and androgenetic alopecia. Dermatology. 2023;239(4):533–41. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [A.J], upon reasonable request. ll additional files are included in the manuscript.