English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The lack of uniform and objective techniques to evaluate treatment efficacy in photo-epilation studies leads to contradictory results. Thus, there is an urgent need to explore commonly accepted assessment tools. One of the most common methods uses hair counts via digital photography. However, macrophotography may not be able to depict the vellus-like hair induced by photo-epilation. On the other hand, handheld dermatoscopy is practical, affordable and offers high-quality magnification. Hair counts from a handheld dermatoscope and a digital camera were compared in 73 women who underwent 6 sessions with the Alexandrite 755 nm laser. Significantly more hairs were counted using the dermatoscope than using the digital camera (76.9 ± 41.3 vs. 58.6 ± 31.4,  p  &lt; .005), independently of hair thickness and hair density. The difference in hair counts between the two instruments was inversely related to hair thickness and directly related to hair density. The handheld dermatoscope may be a more effective tool than the widely used digital camera in evaluating the response to laser hair removal treatment.

Handheld dermatoscope versus digital camera for hair counts in laser facial hair removal