The Trichology Review
Established 2021 · Independent · Reader-supported · No industry fundingVol. 6 · No. 14 — July 2026
THE TRICHOLOGY REVIEW
Evidence status: current·Last updated 12 Jun 2026 · v2.3·Revision history
Editorial Methodology

How we grade the evidence

Every claim we publish carries a letter grade. The grade is not our opinion of a product, it is a measure of how much credible human evidence supports the underlying claim, and how likely that evidence is to hold as more studies arrive. This page is the fixed rubric we apply. We publish it so you can check our reasoning, not take it on faith.

The 4 grades
A
Strong evidence
Multiple well-designed human randomized controlled trials, run by independent groups, reaching consistent conclusions on a clinically meaningful endpoint. New research is unlikely to reverse the direction of effect.
B
Moderate evidence
Human trials exist but are limited, small samples, short duration, mixed results, or surrogate endpoints, often supported by strong mechanistic and animal data. The direction of effect is plausible but not settled.
C
Preliminary evidence
A single small human study, cell or animal work only, or indirect reasoning from a plausible mechanism. Interesting, worth tracking, but not yet a basis for confident claims.
D
Insufficient or contrary
No credible evidence of the claimed effect, or the best available evidence points the other way. A D is not "unproven" — it often means "tested and failed."

What raises and lowers a grade

▲ Raises the grade
  • Randomized, controlled, and blinded
  • Replication by independent labs
  • Clinically real endpoints (hair count, weight)
  • Pre-registered protocols
  • Effect sizes that survive meta-analysis
▼ Lowers the grade
  • Manufacturer-funded with no independent check
  • Surrogate endpoints standing in for outcomes
  • Tiny samples, high dropout
  • Results that fail to replicate
  • "Clinically proven" with no published trial

Our review process

01
Gather every study, not the convenient ones
We pull the full literature, including null and negative results that never make it into marketing.
02
Weight by design, not by headline
A single RCT outranks a dozen cell-culture papers. We say so explicitly in each review.
03
Assign the grade, then a second reviewer checks it
Grades are reviewed by a second contributor before publication and re-checked when new trials appear.
04
Show our work
Every review lists its citations. When we change a grade, we log what changed and why.
Conflicts of interest

We do not sell advertising to ingredient or product manufacturers, and no grade is ever influenced by a commercial relationship.

Where a company we have written about also makes a product we mention, we disclose it in that specific article. The publication is reader-supported. If that ever changes, this page changes first, and you will see it in the revision log.

Referenced by
VogueAllureHarper’s Bazaarbyrdiewell+goodCosmopolitanGlamourmarie clairerefinery29InStyleDermatology TimesPractical DermatologyCosmetics & ToiletriesVogueAllureHarper’s Bazaarbyrdiewell+goodCosmopolitanGlamourmarie clairerefinery29InStyleDermatology TimesPractical DermatologyCosmetics & Toiletries
142
Dermatology practices citing us
9,400
Digest subscribers
40
Countries reached
68,000
Monthly readers
Dermatologists’ Choice — 142 dermatologists cite The Trichology Review in practice, uncompensated.
Grade Alerts

Grades for hair treatments change. Know when they do. Get an alert when a grade moves, plus each new review. About 2 emails a month. No products, no sponsors.

THE TRICHOLOGY REVIEW
contact@thetrichologyreview.org
An independent, reader-supported publication. We accept no advertising from ingredient or product manufacturers.
Dermatologists’ Choice · 142 dermatologists cite us, uncompensated
Grade Alerts
Grades for hair treatments change. Know when they do. Get an alert when a grade moves, plus each new review. About 2 emails a month. No products, no sponsors.
© 2026 The Trichology Review · Editorial independence policy