Rushton D H, de Brouwer B, de Coster W, van Neste D J
School of Pharmacy & Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth, UK.
Acta Derm Venereol. 1993 Apr;73(2):150-3. doi: 10.2340/0001555573150153.
Quantitative evaluation of scalp hair requires techniques that are reproducible. The unit area trichogram is such a method but is unsuitable for large-scale clinical trials. An alternative may be the phototrichogram--a non-plucking, non-invasive method. Hair variables were evaluated in 12 Caucasian subjects employing both methods. The mean value for total hair density was significantly underestimated by the phototrichogram (181 versus 237 hairs/cm2); however, no significant difference was found between this phototrichogram value and the number of non-vellus hairs/cm2. Estimates for the percentage of anagen hairs were similar with both methods. Hair diameters from the phototrichogram were too unreliable to be of any practical use. Analysis of the individual hair data revealed that light hair was much more difficult to evaluate than dark hair. Consequently, Caucasian subjects with light hair or dark skin subjects with dark hair should be excluded from studies employing phototrichograms.
对头皮毛发进行定量评估需要可重复的技术。单位面积毛发计数法就是这样一种方法,但它不适用于大规模临床试验。另一种方法可能是毛发照像术——一种不拔毛、非侵入性的方法。我们使用这两种方法对12名白种人受试者的毛发变量进行了评估。毛发照像术显著低估了总毛发密度的平均值(分别为181根/平方厘米和237根/平方厘米);然而,该毛发照像术的值与非毳毛数量/平方厘米之间未发现显著差异。两种方法对生长期毛发百分比的估计相似。毛发照像术得出的毛发直径太不可靠,没有实际用途。对个体毛发数据的分析表明,浅色头发比深色头发更难评估。因此,浅色头发的白种人受试者或深色头发的深色皮肤受试者应被排除在采用毛发照像术的研究之外。