4.0 Article

Trichoscopic Findings of Hair Loss in Koreans

期刊

ANNALS OF DERMATOLOGY
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 539-550

出版社

KOREAN DERMATOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.5021/ad.2015.27.5.539

关键词

Alopecia; Asians; Dermoscopy; Koreans

资金

  1. Fund of Biomedical Research Institute, Chonbuk National University Hospital

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Trichoscopic findings of hair loss have been well described for the differential diagnosis of alopecia; however, critical findings were not thoroughly investigated or compared among all ethnic groups, including Asians. Objective: We aimed to find any characteristic trichoscopic findings in Korean alopecia patients and to verify whether those findings are closely related to previously reported observations. Methods: Three hundred and twenty-seven patients with hair loss of various causes and 160 normal scalps were analyzed. Trichoscopic examination was performed with a polarized-light handheld dermoscope. Results: A total of 35 patterns of trichoscopic features were represented, and certain features were significantly common or observed exclusively in a particular type of alopecia as follows: yellow dots, exclamation mark hairs, and proximal tapering hairs (alopecia areata), trichoptilosis and pointed hairs (trichotillomania), corkscrew hairs, septate hyphae hairs, and comma hairs (tinea capitis), diffuse white area, fibrotic white dots, and tufting hairs (primary cicatricial alopecia), hair diameter diversity and peripilar sign (androgenetic alopecia), and short nonvellus hairs (telogen effluvium); Conclusion: The characteristic trichoscopic features for the differential diagnosis of alopecia in Koreans, shown as follicular, perifollicular, and and hair shaft patterns, are similar to those of Caucasians; however, the frequencies of the pigment patterns are different between Koreans and Caucasians because of the contrast effect of the skin and hair color. Therefore, racial difference should be considered in the trichoscopic evaluation for differential diagnosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据