A clearer view of men's hair loss US GUIDE · OCTOBER 2026
Home /

FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE

Follicle Atlas.
The study and the small print.

A selected reading library, with findings kept next to their limitations. Evidence about a treatment does not automatically validate a brand.

2002

393 men · 48 weeks

Topical minoxidil, 5% vs. 2% vs. placebo

The 5% solution performed better on measured hair outcomes.

Read with this context: Men aged 18–49; solutions were studied. Do not transfer the result to every formulation or cause of hair loss.

Olsen et al., 2002 · randomized trial ↗
2015

100 participants · 6 months

Rosemary oil vs. 2% minoxidil

Both groups improved hair counts at six months.

Read with this context: No placebo arm and no 5% comparator. No significant between-group difference is not proof of equivalence.

Panahi et al., 2015 · comparative trial ↗
2024

9 studies · 291 participants

PRP for male pattern hair loss

A systematic review found potential benefits in hair density and count.

Read with this context: Low-quality evidence, risk of bias and varied protocols limit confidence.

2024 PRP systematic review ↗
2014

Animal experiment

Peppermint oil in mice

An often-cited preclinical experiment.

Read with this context: Mouse results do not establish effectiveness in people.

Oh et al., 2014 · mouse study ↗
2025

FDA safety communication

Compounded topical finasteride

The FDA warns about reported adverse events and inadvertent exposure.

Read with this context: Safety reports cannot establish the rate of an event. Topical finasteride is not FDA-approved in the US.

FDA: compounded topical finasteride risk alert ↗
How to use this library: It is not a systematic review of all available literature and has not been medically reviewed. Follow linked sources and discuss treatment decisions with a qualified clinician.