Using Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP)Therapy to Efficiently Reduce Beard Hair Loss

Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) therapy is one of the most recent scientific advancements in the field of hair restoration. It’s simple, painless and relies on activating your body’s own healing capacities. Here is what you need to know about this procedure:


What is Platelet-Rich Plasma (PRP) Therapy for beard hair loss?   


PRP therapy has already been successfully used for some time in treating other conditions, such as muscle, bone or joint injuries. However, it was only recently that its benefits in promoting hair growth and restoration have been scientifically verified. This quick and easy procedure involves drawing a little bit of your own blood, then using a special centrifuge to separate the substances in it. Once the nutrient-rich platelets, which are great at promoting tissue growth are isolated, they are injected into the balding areas on your chin. This leads to better vascularization, tissue healing and regeneration, which means your reinvigorated follicles will start producing a thick and healthy-looking beard.


The procedure is no more painful than the sting of any injection, it is not invasive and carries no more risks than your average jab. Because it is your own blood that you are using, there is no chance of the body rejecting the platelets.     


Who can benefit from PRP therapy for beard hair loss?


There is already mounting evidence that PRP can be very effective in treating androgenetic alopecia (male pattern baldness) in the beard area. However, new research indicates that it may also successfully treat alopecia areata of the beard – a relatively rare, auto-immune condition which leaves a pattern bald spots on your chin. 


PRP therapy can also help treat beard loss caused by trauma (if the scarring is not too severe), by resolved skin issues, or by aging. However, it is unlikely that this procedure will yield good results if your hair loss is caused by beard trichotillomania (pulling out your beard hair when stressed), chemotherapy, untreated dermatological conditions, extensive scarring etc. If you are unsure what is causing your beard hair to fall out or would like to be certain that PRP is the right choice for you, do not hesitate to schedule an appointment with a dermatologist.  


How much does PRP therapy for beard hair loss cost?

A good price-quality ratio, offered by the well-reputed Wimpole Clinic in London, starts at $449 per PRP session. Given that 3-4 sessions, spaced out 4 weeks apart are normally required, followed by a booster session after 6-12 months, you should probably consider setting aside around $2,000-3,000 for the procedure in the first
year.

Editor’s Note: This blog post was sponsored and contributed by Wimpole Clinic.

Wear a Damn Mask, PLEASE!

Wear a Damn Mask, PLEASE!

When Covid first appeared in the US, several Asian physician friends had simple advice for me, “Wear a mask.” Having dealt with various coronaviruses for over a decade, this was the fundamental lesson taken from dealing with and controlling these respiratory viruses. Now, I may only be a dumb neurosurgeon, (said with humility, irony and in jest), but I know a thing or two about masks, having spent 30 years of life wearing them, sometimes for 12 or more hours at a time. There is nothing pleasurable about wearing a mask, but I have experienced first-hand how masks can protect patients and physicians from illness. More broadly I have seen how masks can protect healthcare workers from the worst of infectious diseases, even giving them supernatural-like protection when they must enter the belly of the beast while caring for highly contagious and fatal illnesses like Ebola. Meanwhile, each and every day, healthcare workers all over the world, including my own family members are able to avoid infection while caring for hospitalized Covid patients who are often spewing the virus everywhere. It’s incontrovertible – masks truly work!; they prevent Covid infections.

Continue reading “Wear a Damn Mask, PLEASE!”

Is it Time to Pull Back the Curtain from Peer Review?

Double-blind and single-blind processes continue to dominate academic peer review. Too often this results in a ‘black box’ – a system without sufficient transparency for authors, readers and reviewers alike. Hopefully one day fully transparent (and even public) peer review will come to be seen as acceptable throughout the world of academic publishing. For now we must take small steps to break down this barrier, just as Cureus works to break down barriers to publication.

Continue reading “Is it Time to Pull Back the Curtain from Peer Review?”

Cureus People: Matthew LaVelle, Wayne State University School of Medicine

Cureus People: Matthew LaVelle, Wayne State University School of Medicine

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrjEfk9S0OE&feature=em-share_video_user

Matthew LaVelle

Team Cur&#275us talked with Matthew LaVelle, Wayne State University School of Medicine. His entry in the Healthcare Technology category won the Grand Prize in our Cur&#275us Fall 2012 International Poster Competition.

Matthew worked at Columbia University as both a research assistant in the field of cardiothoracic surgery and as a perfusionist with the heart and lung transplant team. He hopes to leverage his ongoing passion for the development and institution of medical technology into a career as a surgeon.

 

Cureus People: Jay Gantz, University of Washington

Cureus People: Jay Gantz, University of Washington

httpvh://youtu.be/lZNk_wJxyv0

Jay Gantz

Our video team caught up with Jay Gantz on campus at the University of Washington where he is a graduate student and medical student in a combined degree program completing his fourth year PHD.

Jay Gantz won 2nd place with his Cardiology poster submission entered in the Cur&#275us Fall 2012 Poster Competition. In addition to his passion for medicine, Jay Gantz is also an accomplished cellist who loves the challenge of skiing in the great Northwest.

Steps Towards An Open Model For Medical Publishing

Steps Towards An Open Model For Medical Publishing

Thomas Edison

The New Yorker is the latest publication to pick up on the myriad of issues surrounding scientific publishing in their article Cleaning Up Science by Gary Marcus.

Science is no more immune to mistakes and dubious activity than any other discipline because in the end it involves humans. When you add the “publish or perish” pressure to the equation then issues are going to arise.

Introducing more efficient publishing models and systems of checks and balances helps minimize the kinds of issues John Ionnidis, MD of Stanford has revealed for years.

Cur&#275us was created to better serve medical authors in a number of ways including the introduction of a more democratic form of scientific discovery. On Cur&#275us the potential for politics is removed…reviewers are positioned to help an author improve his or her paper without giving this select group of reviewers the ability to “kill” a paper.

Paper quality is determined after a paper is published through our crowd-sourcing system called Scholarly Impact Quotient (SIQ). Authors also retain copyright and their papers are published quickly and at no cost.

For example, papers on Cur&#275us may be rejected for the following reasons; scientific fraud, misleading or potentially clinically dangerous material, as well as obvious copyright violations.

In the end, we believe this open model for medical publishing not only better serves authors, but patients as well.

“The best science is cumulative, not just a list of fun results; as people push deeper, bad ideas that are invalid eventually crumble. Even if nothing changed, we would eventually achieve the deep understanding that all scientists strive for. But there is no doubt that we can get there faster if we clean up our act.” – The New Yorker

 

Cureus Medical Journal Featured in San Francisco Chronicle

Cureus Medical Journal Featured in San Francisco Chronicle

John R. Adler M.D.

The San Francisco Chronicle interviewed John Adler, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery, Stanford University and Editor-in-Chief at Cur&#275us. They were interested in our revolutionary concept of using crowdsourcing to evaluate and publish medical papers.

John Adler points out that “Nowadays, you wouldn’t go to a restaurant without Yelping it first. You wouldn’t go see a movie without seeing what Rotten Tomatoes had to say about it.”

Still for some reason the world of medical journals is stuck in a 200 year old paradigm. He has spent the last three years changing the status quo.

The Cur&#275us model was created to expedite the process of medical publishing. An editorial board of experts will review submitted papers within days rather then months. But most of all, Cur&#275us is moving medical journals into the open from behind pay walls.

“The average Joe has little to no access to the medical literature today,” Adler said. “It’s not right. It should be a human right.”

Although the idea of crowdsourcing seems revolutionary, Dr. Adler’s vision has been stirring for some time.

He writes in A New Age Of Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals that he founded Cur&#275us “to address the challenges I have observed first-hand as an editor of numerous journals and an academic physician who has published and reviewed for years. We can do much better by authors, reviewers and certainly patients. This is the mission of Cur&#275us.”

Read the entire article at SF Gate.

Update: Fast Company picked this story up as well.

Cureus People: Bowen Jiang, Stanford University

Cureus People: Bowen Jiang, Stanford University

Bowen Jiang won the neurology category with his entry on 3-D Rotational Angiography in the Cur&#275us 2012 Fall Poster Competition. He’s currently working in a rehab center for veterans.

Team Cur&#275us stopped by the Stanford University campus to meet with Bowen who describes himself as an “aspiring neurosurgeon-scientist-innovator” in his profile.

Bowen is currently in is last year of medical school.

httpvh://youtu.be/L6grusc8CTw

Should the process of publishing a paper trump the power of scientific ideas within?

Should the process of publishing a paper trump the power of scientific ideas within?

Henry Jacob Bigelow

Last week the New England Journal of Medicine announced that a survey of readers selected the 1842 publication of a paper by Henry Jacob Bigelow, reporting the first use of anesthesia, as the single most important paper in the 200 year old history of the journal.

Given the future implications of what was being reported in this paper, especially as we now look back over the medical landscape 150 years later, I cannot disagree with the selection. However, what I do find more than a little bit ironic is that such a paper, if submitted today, would stand almost no chance of being published in the NEJM, or virtually any so-called high impact journal.

As the Bigelow paper wended through the review process, this in-hindsight completely transformational paper, would be rightly criticized (and surely killed) as being little more than anecdote.

There is certainly no randomized blinded trial with rigorous statistical measures that ensures the quality of findings live up to the highest “scientific standards”. Moreover, lacking an IRB stamp of approval would certainly invalidate the paper for publication right out of the gate.

So I ask, have the standards of the NEJM and nearly all modern journals become so obtuse and elevated that the findings they now report are irrelevant to truly novel clinical innovation?

Also last week, I was advised by one of the journals for which I have long served as an editor, that future observational studies, if they are to even be considered for publication, must now assiduously adhere to STROBE guidelines.

Such STROBE guidelines represent the consensus of a 2004 big funded workshop, i.e. self appointed committee, composed of editors and sundry luminary academics who, presumably with the best of intentions, felt compelled to improve the reporting of observational studies.

But what started as well meaning “guidelines” have (perhaps not surprisingly) now morphed into a compulsory directive enforced by the editor in chief.  Will the quality of the journal articles now being published under the STROBE guidelines truly benefit from this new set of regulations?  Surely the editor in chief and politically-connected self-appointed STROBE experts would argue yes, but notably these sacrosanct “guidelines” have themselves never been subjected to any empirical test.

What I am quite confident about is that the journal in question has put up yet another barrier to authors reporting potentially interesting, and even ground breaking, clinical studies. As a result is it possible that that today’s equivalent to the good Dr. Bigelow’s reporting of anesthesia will go undiscovered because of the sheer hassle of publishing in the peer reviewed literature?

Is it possible that STROBE processes might drive some of today’s clinical innovators to just throw up his or her hands and say no thank you to reporting their findings? This leads to the bigger question, should the process of publishing a paper trump the power of scientific ideas within?

Readers of Cur&#275us are well aware of our Journal’s bias in this regard!

A New Age Of Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals

A New Age Of Peer Reviewed Scientific Journals

We can do much better by authors, reviewers and certainly patients. – John Adler MD

John Adler, MD, Professor of Neurosurgery, Stanford University; Editor-in-Chief, Cur&#275us, has published a new editorial on the variety of issues associated with the centuries-old industry of peer reviewed scientific publication.

In today’s internet age, can the status quo peer review system provide value to our society – or is there a better way for “establishing scientific validity” and dissemination of knowledge?

Dr. Adler highlights some of the serious hurdles with current traditional peer review (i.e. fraud, and reviewer bias) and proposes to re-imagine peer review to  become more suitable to our internet age. In a digital platform, the space limits within paper journals are gone. Without having to ration the space, there is no need to “kill” papers and artificially limit the number of papers published in a given month.

And to assess the quality of these papers Adler proposes crowd sourcing. To tap into the collective intelligence via Cur&#275us’ Scholarly Impact Quotient (SIQ). The SIQ is an “evolving, yet enduring reflection of a paper’s true scientific impact.”

Dr. Adler founded Cur&#275us “to address the challenges I have observed first-hand as an editor of numerous journals and an academic physician who has published and reviewed for years. We can do much better by authors, reviewers and certainly patients. This is the mission of Cur&#275us.”

Source: A new age of peer reviewed scientific journals – John R. Adler Jr

 

A new age of peer reviewed scientific journals – John R. Adler Jr