Microneedling for Hair Loss Disorders: 2022 Systematic Review Research Summary
This is a plain-language summary of the original published research. We do not add conclusions or opinions of our own. This is not medical advice — consult a certified healthcare practitioner before making any decision.
Original research published in PMC (open access), 2022
Microneedling for Hair Loss Disorders
Study conclusion
Systematic review of 22 clinical studies involving 1,127 patients found that microneedling as adjunct therapy consistently improved hair parameters across both sexes, multiple types of hair loss, needling depths from 0.5mm to 2.5mm, and different session frequencies. No optimal parameters could be established.
Strength of evidence
This was a systematic review of 22 studies but without statistical pooling. The score reflects a reasonably comprehensive evidence base for combination use. It is not higher because no meta-analysis was conducted, evidence for standalone microneedling vs placebo remains absent, and optimal parameters could not be defined.
Who it applies to
Who was studied
Adults with various types of hair loss including pattern hair loss and alopecia areata. 1,127 patients across 22 clinical studies. Microneedling used as adjunct therapy.
Who was NOT studied
Microneedling as a standalone treatment vs placebo. Children.
What to look for when shopping
Microneedling is a clinic-based procedure. This review covered professional devices with needles 0.5mm–2.5mm. Home dermarollers use shorter needles — clinical evidence does not apply to home devices.
What research cannot help you decide
Whether microneedling as a standalone treatment without another treatment works. What the optimal needle depth, session interval, or number of sessions is.
Key findings
- Microneedling as adjunct therapy improved hair parameters across both men and women
- Positive results were seen across multiple types of hair loss, not only pattern hair loss
- Needling depths from 0.5mm to 2.5mm and various session frequencies all showed positive results
- No optimal parameters could be established from available evidence
- No trial tested standalone microneedling against placebo
What they did
Researchers searched for all clinical studies of microneedling for hair loss disorders. 22 studies with 1,127 patients were identified. Hair parameters including hair count, density, and thickness were reviewed narratively across studies.
What they found
| Comparison | Result | Significant? |
|---|---|---|
| Microneedling as adjunct — hair parameters (both sexes) | Consistently positive across 22 studies | No |
| Different hair loss types — microneedling adjunct | Positive results across AGA and alopecia areata | No |
| Needle depths 0.5–2.5mm — comparison | All depths showed positive results, no optimal identified | No |
| Microneedling alone vs placebo | Not tested in any included study | No |
What this study does not show
- 1.Whether microneedling alone (without another treatment) works.
- 2.What the optimal needling depth, session interval, or total number of sessions is.
- 3.Whether home dermarollers produce similar results to clinic microneedling.
Limitations
- 1.Systematic review without statistical pooling — no pooled effect sizes
- 2.No trial tested microneedling alone vs placebo
- 3.Variable study designs and outcome measures across 22 studies
- 4.Optimal treatment parameters could not be established
Who funded it
No funding source declared. No conflicts of interest reported.
Used in these articles
Links added as fact-checks and articles citing this study are published.