Background: The frequency of different types of alopecia is not clearly reported in recent studies. Objective: To analyze the frequency of the types of alopecia in patients consulting at specialist hair clinics (SHC) and to assess for global variations. Methods: Multicenter retrospective study including data from patients evaluated at referral SHC in Europe, America, Africa and Australia. Results: A total of 2,835 patients (72.7% females and 27.3% males) with 3,133 diagnoses of alopecia were included (73% were non-cicatricial and 27% were cicatricial alopecias). In all, 57 different types of alopecia were characterized. The most frequent type was androgenetic alopecia (AGA) (37.7%), followed by alopecia areata (AA) (18.2%), telogen effluvium (TE) (11.3%), frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) (10.8%), lichen planopilaris (LPP) (7.6%), folliculitis decalvans (FD) (2.8%), discoid lupus (1.9%) Vañó-Galván et al.

No abstract

Summary Background Frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) has become one of the most common causes of cicatricial alopecia worldwide. However, there is a lack of clear aetiology and robust clinical trial evidence for the efficacy and safety of agents currently used for treatment. Objectives To enable data to be collected worldwide on FFA using common criteria and assessment methods. Methods A multicentre, international group of experts in hair loss was convened by email to create consensus recommendations for clinical trials. Consensus was defined at > 90% agreement on each recommended part of these guidelines. Results Standardized diagnostic criteria, severity rating, staging, and investigator and patient assessment of scalp hair loss and other clinical features of FFA were created. Conclusions These guidelines should allow the collection of reliable aggregate data on FFA and advance efforts in both clinical and basic research to close knowledge gaps in this condition.

No abstract

Summary Videolaryngoscopes are thought to improve glottic view and facilitate tracheal intubation compared with the Macintosh direct laryngoscope. However, we currently do not know which one would be the best choice in most patients undergoing anaesthesia. We designed this systematic review with network meta‐analyses to rank the different videolaryngoscopes and the Macintosh direct laryngoscope. We conducted searches in PubMed and a further five databases on 11 January 2021. We included randomised clinical trials with patients aged ≥16 years, comparing different videolaryngoscopes, or videolaryngoscopes with the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for the outcomes: failed intubation; failed first intubation attempt; failed intubation within two attempts; difficult intubation; percentage of glottic opening seen; difficult laryngoscopy; and time needed for intubation. We assessed the quality of evidence according to GRADE recommendations and included 179 studies in the meta‐analyses. The C‐MAC and C‐MAC D‐Blade were top ranked for avoiding failed intubation, but we did not find statistically significant differences between any two distinct videolaryngoscopes for this outcome. Further, the C‐MAC D‐Blade performed significantly better than the C‐MAC Macintosh blade for difficult laryngoscopy. We found statistically significant differences between the laryngoscopes for time to intubation, but these differences were not considered clinically relevant. The evidence was judged as of low or very low quality overall. In conclusion, different videolaryngoscopes have differential intubation performance and some may be currently preferred among the available devices. Furthermore, videolaryngoscopes and the Macintosh direct laryngoscope may be considered clinically equivalent for the time taken for tracheal intubation. However, despite the rankings from our analyses, the current available evidence is not sufficient to ensure significant superiority of one device or a small set of them over the others for our intubation‐related outcomes.