The Gut-Scalp Axis: A Systematic Review of Dietary Interventions on Microbiome Dysbiosis in Scalp Disorders

The human scalp carries a diverse and functionally significant microbiome that plays a crucial role in the maintenance of skin homeostasis and barrier function. Dysbiosis or alterations in this microbiota, has been associated with a variety of scalp disorders such as dandruff, seborrheic dermatitis, androgenic alopecia (AGA) and alopecia areata (AA) [1-3]. These conditions are typically marked by inflammation, dysfunction of sebaceous glands, follicular disease, and, in some, immune-mediated processes. The scalp microbiota is shaped by intrinsic factors (e.g., genetics, function and immune status) and extrinsic factors (e.g., environmental and shampooing habits), with certain microbial taxa such as Malassezia, Cutibacterium, Staphylococcus and Pseudomonas being differently associated with pathological states [2,4].

Along with these developments, the gut microbiota is increasingly recognized for its role in regulating systemic immunity, metabolic homeostasis and neuroendocrine signaling. There is growing evidence that signals from the gut can modulate skin and hair follicle biology via immunologic and metabolic pathways-referred to as the gut-skin axis [5,6]. Recent extensions of this paradigm have proposed a gut-scalp axis, by which microbial metabolites, cytokine signaling and neuroimmune crosstalk govern scalp-specific inflammatory and regenerative responses [7]. Preclinical and clinical research have demonstrated that oral probiotic therapy and associated microbial interventions can have systemic anti-inflammatory actions, regulate oxidative stress and modulate skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis, psoriasis and acne [6,8].

Emerging data supported a gut-skin-hair axis whereby microbial signals modulated perifollicular immunity, barrier integrity and sebaceous microecology-mechanisms plausibly extending to inflammatory/autoimmune scalp diseases such as Alopecia Areata (AA) and micro‐inflammatory phenotypes that accompany androgenetic alopecia (AGA). In this framework, probiotics, prebiotics, postbiotics, synbiotics and paraprobiotics functioned as microbiome‐directed adjuncts [9-11]. Orally delivered pro/synbiotics were hypothesized to rebalance dysbiosis, elevate short-chain fatty acids and shift T-cell polarization toward Treg dominance while damping Th1/Th17 axes (e.g., IFN-γ/IL-17), thereby reducing perifollicular inflammation relevant to AA; they also potentially mitigated oxidative stress and normalized metabolic mediators that secondarily affect hair cycling [9-10]. Topical paraprobiotics (non-viable microbes) and postbiotics (defined microbial metabolites such as lactic acid, bacteriocins, exopolysaccharides) engaged TLR2/TRL4 and related pattern-recognition pathways in keratinocytes/sebocytes to tighten barrier (↓TEWL, ↑hydration), suppress NF-κB-driven cytokines (e.g., IL-6, IL-31) and favor a scalp biome with lower Malassezia/Cutibacterium overgrowth, without the sensitization or resistance risks seen with chronic corticosteroid or antifungal use [11-13]. Because AGA remains androgen-driven, these modalities were positioned as adjunctive, targeting the micro-inflammatory/oxidative milieu and microbiota imbalance that can exacerbate shedding and symptoms, whereas in AA they may complement immunomodulators by restoring immune tolerance at the follicle. Overall, microbiome-directed strategies were non-invasive, steroid-sparing and mechanistically coherent; however, benefits likely depended on strain/formulation specificity, dose and viability (for probiotics), stability in scalp pH/sebum and host context. Rigorous, adequately powered randomized trials with standardized endpoints (hair density/diameter, SALT or dandruff indices, cytokines, TEWL and taxa/functional profiles) remained necessary to confirm durability, define responder phenotypes and establish where these agents best integrate with existing AA/AGA therapies.

In spite of the rising number of publications, the evidence supporting microbiota-modulating interventions in scalp disease is heterogenous and fragmented. Clinical trials differ by type of intervention, microbial target (scaly scalp vs. gut), diagnostic criteria, follow-up duration and outcome measures. In this context, mechanistic investigation of inflammatory, hormonal or metabolic pathways distal to microbial modulation in scalp disease is not available. Therefore, systematic assessment of the published literature is needed to evaluate if microbiota-targeted dietary and topical interventions result in clinically meaningful, microbial or biomarker-level modifications in scalp health.

The current systematic review was thus conducted to critically assess and synthesize evidence for the efficacy of diet or microbiota-derived approaches to gut or scalp microbiota for scalp disorder treatment, with a focus on clinical effects, microbial modulation, immunomodulation and skin barrier integrity.

Eligibility Criteria

The PECOS (Population, Exposure, Comparator, Outcome, Study design) framework was created to help structure this systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA reporting guidelines [14]. The Population was scalp-related dermatologic condition patients, namely dandruff, seborrheic dermatitis, androgenic alopecia or alopecia areata. The Exposure was microbiome-modyling interventions, including probiotic, prebiotic, paraprobiotic, postbiotic or dietary interventions administered orally or topically. The Comparator was placebo groups, baseline controls or healthy controls, respectively, depending on the study design used. The Outcomes were clinical severity measures (e.g., hair density, sebum secretion and dandruff scales), microbial measures (e.g., alpha/beta diversity and taxonomic changes), inflammatory or hormonal biomarkers, as well as any self-reported symptoms by patients. The Study designs were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), nonrandomized interventional studies and cross-sectional observational studies to allow intervention-based and exploratory microbiome analyses to be eligible.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Inclusion criteria for studies were those conducted on participants with a diagnosis of a scalp disorder and that examined interventions or correlations between microbiota. Acceptable interventions were formulations, paraprobiotics, postbiotics, prebiotics, probiotics or dietary regimens adjusting microbiota. Studies needed to report at least one outcome for scalp or hair health, clinical, microbial, biochemical or patient-reported. Both observational and interventional study designs were acceptable. Excluded were in vitro studies, animal studies, narrative reviews, editorials, case reports, commentaries and studies in which there was no satisfactory outcome data or modulation of the microbiome was not a primary or secondary outcome. Also excluded were studies not published in full text or in non-English languages.

A range of methodologies were utilized to consider associative and Interventional evidence for the gut-scalp axis. RCTs were selected as they are able to assess the effect of interventions in a controlled setting. Nonrandomized interventional studies were also included to account for realistic, real-life situations where randomization was not feasible or not conducted. Cross-sectional observational studies were considered appropriate to explore possible differences in the microbiome or association with disease compared with controls, particularly where longitudinal intervention data were lacking.

Database Search Protocol

A systematic search was performed in six databases. These consisted of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL and ClinicalTrials.gov. Controlled vocabulary (e.g., MeSH and Emtree terms) and free-text relevant terms were incorporated in each database-specific strategy. Boolean operators (AND, OR) were utilized to link search concepts such as scalp disorders (e.g., alopecia, dandruff), microbiota targets (e.g., gut microbiome, skin microbiome) and intervention types (e.g., probiotics, synbiotics). The search strategy was modified to each platform’s syntax to achieve sensitivity and comprehensiveness. No publication date limits were imposed (Table 1).

Table 1: Database-Specific Search Strings

Data Extraction Protocol and Chosen Items

Data were retrieved in duplicate by two reviewers utilizing a pretested, version-controlled template; discrepancies were resolved through consensus or the intervention of a third party. The template encompassed study identifiers (author, year, setting), methodological design and sampling framework, sample size, participant characteristics (age, sex), scalp disorder phenotype, intervention administration (topical, oral, synbiotic; dosage, schedule, duration), target compartment (gut versus scalp microbiota), microbiome assay techniques (16S/shotgun for bacteria, ITS for fungi, qPCR/culture), bioinformatics processes and normalizations (rarefaction/compositional transformations), diversity metrics (α/β), as well as taxonomic and functional outputs. Clinical endpoints (e.g., SALT, hair density/diameter, dandruff indices, sebum), inflammatory and oxidative markers (e.g., IL-6, IL-31, TGF-β1, CRP/hsCRP, SOD) and barrier measurements (TEWL, hydration, pH) were extracted with units standardized a priori (e.g., hairs/cm²; pg/mL; g·m⁻²·h⁻¹). Patient-reported outcomes and adverse events were recorded verbatim and classified into prespecified domains. In cases where multiple time points were available, data closest to the primary window (weeks 4-24) were preferentially abstracted; otherwise, the longest common follow-up period was utilized. Changes from pre- to post-intervention and intergroup comparisons were documented separately; only statistics explicitly articulated in the text, tables or supplementary materials were extracted. Suspected duplicate cohorts were harmonized and ambiguous denominators or derived values were excluded from quantitative synthesis.

Protocol for Assessing Risk of Bias

Risk of bias was appraised with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tools [15] aligned to design: the 13-item RCT checklist (random sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding of participants/personnel/outcome assessors, fidelity, complete outcome measurement, appropriate analysis including ITT), the 9-item quasi-experimental tool (baseline comparability, concurrent controls, co-interventions, outcome reliability, follow-up completeness) and the 8-item cross-sectional tool (sampling frame/strategy, adequacy of sample size, confounding identification/control, validity/reliability of exposure and outcome measures). Each item was rated “Yes/No/Unclear/NA” and study-level judgments were derived by domain aggregation, prioritizing internal validity domains (randomization/concealment/ blinding; confounding control; outcome measurement) when discordant.

Evaluation of Evidence Certainty

Certainty of evidence was graded at the outcome level by GRADE [16], initialised at high for randomized trials and low for observational studies, then downward grading for study-level risk of bias (informed by JBI assessments), inconsistency (heterogeneity/non-overlapping CIs), indirectness (mismatch of population/intervention/outcome/ time-point), imprecision (broad CIs across decision thresholds or optimal information size not attained) and publication bias (small-studies effects/asymmetry where possible). Downward upgrading was given consideration for large effects, exposure-response gradients or if likely residual confounding would diminish (rather than inflate) observed effects. Clinical (hair/scalp) outcomes, microbiological endpoints (taxa/diversity), inflammatory/ oxidative markers and barrier measures were graded separately to yield transparent, domain-specification certainty statements.

A systematic search across databases yielded 754 records (Figure 1). After deduplication (28 duplicates removed), 726 unique records were screened. No records were excluded at the screening stage. Of these, 726 full-text reports were sought and 42 were unable to be retrieved. Of the remaining 684 articles, eligibility was ascertained. After assessment, 670 records were excluded, primarily because the records were case reports (n = 186), literature reviews (n = 126), in-vitro studies (n = 164) or failed PECOS criteria (n = 194). 14 studies [17-30] were eventually excluded and added to the systematic review after fulfilling the inclusion criteria.

Figure 1: PRISMA Study Selection Process for the Review

Bias Assessment Observations

The RCTs conveyed a low risk of bias in the majority of areas (Figure 2), including randomization, comparability at baseline, outcome measurement, follow-up and statistical analysis, though some issues related to blinding or confounder management were noted in the majority of trials [17,22,24,26,28]. Woo et al. [29], however, noted a general higher risk because of serious issues in blinding and the occurrence of unresolved confounding variables.

Figure 2: Bias Assessment Across RCTs Included in the Review

Among the cross-sectional studies (Figure 3), Ho et al. [19], Jung et al. [20] and Moreno-Arrones et al. [23] were overall at low risk of bias for outcome measurement and statistical analysis. Ho et al. [19] and Moreno-Arrones et al. [23] also had some issues with confounder identification and adjustment.

Figure 3: Bias Assessment Across the Cross-Sectional Studies Included in the Review

The low global risk rating assigned to the Mendelian randomization study by Li et al. [21] was accompanied with some issues in comparability of participants as well as confounder adjustment. The pilot study by Park et al. [25] was accompanied with some issues in several aspects, specifically in confounder control as well as reliability in outcome measurement, leading to its global moderate

Figure 4: Bias Assessment Across the Nonrandomised Studies Included in the Review

Demographic Variables Assessed

The studies included in the review (Table 2) a range of geographic locations including Brazil [17], Spain [18,23,24], Korea [20,25,29], China [21,30], Taiwan [22,28], France [26], Italy [27] and Singapore [19] and they are representative of widespread global interest. They were predominantly RCTs [17,18,22,24,26-28,30] but some were cross-sectional studies [19,20,23], one was a pilot study [25] and one was a Mendelian randomization analysis [21].

Table 2: Demographic Characteristics of Included Studies

Sample sizes were highly variable, ranging from small samples of 22 participants [28] to larger trials of 160 participants [27] and some studies did not report sample sizes [19,29]. Participants' ages ranged from young adulthood to middle age and some studies reported mean ages (e.g., 32.56±10.28 years [17], 40.1 years [23]) and others reported ranges (e.g., 18-65 years [18]); however, some studies did not report the age of participants [19,22,29]. The sex ratio was generally equal [17,25,28,30], although some studies did not have sex-specific results [19,22,24,27,29] and one study included only male participants [26]. Follow-up intervals varied between single time-point measurements [19,20,23] and longer intervals of time, i.e., 24 weeks [24,29] and 3-5 months [27,28].

Intervention Characteristics Assessed

The technical aspects of the studies included in this review showed a wide range of scalp disorders, treatment options, microbial targets and analysis techniques (Table 3). Most studies were on AGA [18-20,25], AA [21,23,24,27] and dandruff [17,26,28], while the rest were on nonspecific hair loss [22,29,30]. This range reflected the wide applicability of microbiome-targeted interventions in inflammatory as well as non-scarring scalp conditions.

Types of interventions were probiotics (e.g., Lactiplantibacillus plantarum, L. paracasei, L. rhamnosus, B. longum) [18,22,24,26,30], paraprobiotics or thermally inactivated strains [17,28] and postbiotics or fermented foods [27,29], administered orally or topically. Composite interventions such as fermented food preparations [25] or poly-strain probiotic mixtures [30] were used in some studies and others utilized endogenous exposure for which inference was drawn using genetic instruments [21] or observational models without therapeutic intervention [19,20,23]. These methods allowed for the measurement of interventional modulation and natural fluctuation in microbiota profiles related to scalp health.

Microbial targets differed by intervention approach and consisted of the gut microbiota [18,22,23,24,30], scalp microbiota [17,19,26-29] or both [20,21,24]. The two-site study is consistent with increasing appreciation for the gut-scalp axis in dermatologic health. The majority of the studies used 16S rRNA sequencing to characterize microbe [18-24], with others not reporting or using PCR [28]. These molecular techniques provided genus-level resolution, allowing for accurate tracking of taxa like Lactobacillus, Cutibacterium, Malassezia or ASVs linked to AA risk [21]. Dosages were variable, with most probiotic dosages between 10⁸ and 10⁹ CFU per day [18,24,26] and others using postbiotic or paraprobiotic formulations in 1% shampoo or gel vehicle [17,27,28]. Routes of administration were oral [18,22,24-26,30], topical [17,27-29] or genetic analysis-directed exposures [21]. Length was generally daily but one trial gave probiotics twice daily [25,30], which might have maximized systemic or local microbial modulation.

Table 3: Technical Characteristics of Included Studies (↑ = Increase/Elevation; ↓ = Decrease/Reduction)

In terms of microbiome outcome, several interventions led to increased abundance of beneficial taxa such as Lactobacillus [18] or decrease in pro-inflammatory organisms [22,30]. Specific mention was made of Corynebacterium being protective (OR = 0.82) in AA and Betaproteobacteria and Burkholderiales being associated with risk increase (ORs = 1.21, 1.20 respectively) [21]. Restoration or regulation of scalp microbiota balance was demonstrated by some studies, particularly with dandruff-related taxa such as Malassezia and Cutibacterium [26,28]. A few observational studies demonstrated changes such as increased P. acnes in miniaturized follicles [19] or increased alpha diversity in AGA-affected scalps [20], reflecting dysbiosis signatures even in the absence of direct intervention. Adverse event reporting was generally positive with most studies reporting no adverse events [17,22,25-28] with only one study mentioning mild unrelated events such as dry skin and torticollis [30].

Outcomes and Inferences Observed

The clinical measurements made within the studies indicated a substantive effect of microbiome-guided therapeutics on scalp disease that encompassed effects on the quality of hair, inflammatory parameters, microbial homeostasis and appreciable enhancements as subjectively noted by patients (Table 4). A variety of clinical severity measurements were employed that encompassed established scales such as SALT score of alopecia areata [24,27], Trichoscale Pro for photic evaluation of hair follicles [18] and sebum-, dandruff-, erythema-, gloss- and hydration-based indices for measurement of dermatological end-points [17,20,26,28]. Some of the studies employed composite models that incorporated subjective and objective evaluations while others were merely limited to quantitatively interpretable biometric/molecular end-point results that lacked a scale-dependent clinical measurement [19,21,23].

Table 4: Clinical Outcomes, Microbiome and Symptom Improvements Observed

↑: IncreaseElevation; ↓: Decrease/Reduction

For maximal response timing, most treatments had clinical or microbiological response at durations of 4 to 24 weeks with substantial hair regrowth or symptomatic resolution at 12 weeks [22,30], at 16 weeks [18], at 24 weeks [24,29] and from 3 to 5 months [27,28]. Shorter time frames of 4 weeks [17] and 56 days [26] were sufficient for the display of the resolution of dandruff, erythema and microbiota structure and therefore represented early localized scalp reactions against topical and also systemic treatments.

In scalp or hair measurements by the quantitative method, there were trials that showed significant effects such as increased hair thickness, follicular density or root diameter [18,22,25,27,29,30]. Some showed reduction of dandruff scales, sebaceous secretion or oiliness of the scalp [17,26,28], suggesting enhanced scalp barrier control and sebostasis. One observational study showed increased P. acnes colonization of miniaturized follicles, especially of androgenic alopecia [19], while another one showed thinning of scales and reduction of gloss of AGA-diseased scalps [20]. These findings collectively established structural as well as microbiological markers of scalp disease and health.

Assessment of inflammatory/immune biomarkers was also conducted on multiple occasions. Substantial decreases of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-6, IL-31, hsCRP and TGF-β1 were observed while increments of IFN-γ and antioxidant enzymes such as SOD were monitored following treatment with probiotics or following treatment with postbiotics [22,29,30]. These contrasts were linked with clinical resolution as well as illustrated the systemic immunomodulation of treatments of the scalp and intestine. Nevertheless, few clinical trials did not quantify cytokine profiles or dermatispecific immune markers [17,18,21,23-27].

Among the studies analyzed, only two acknowledged the presence of hormonal/metabolic markers; one of them documented decreases of glucose, triglycerides and cholesterol that reflected the metabolic synergy of patients who had both alopecia and metabolic syndrome [30]. The remaining studies did not incorporate hormonal assessments [17-29]. This is the insufficiently analyzed feature of the literature studied.

Certainty Assessment Observations

GRADE judgment of certainty based on combined evidence according to the three types of studies under review (Table 5). As a whole, RCTs [17-18,22,24,26-30] were assigned a moderate to high grade of certainty due to their moderate to low risk of bias, direct relevance to the review question and consistent improvement of scalp conditions, microbial balance and outcomes in relation to hair. A few trials were nonetheless undermined by small samples or rudimentary outcome estimates, which diminished somewhat overall confidence in results.

Table 5: GRADE Assessment Observations

The cross-sectional studies [19-20,23] were of moderate certainty. Although they were low risk for bias and produced consistent, relevant findings on microbial composition variation in relation to scalp disorders, being observational in nature and having variability in measurement precision limited the intensity of conclusions drawn.

The single non-randomised study [25] and the sole Mendelian randomization analysis [21] demonstrated strong certainty of evidence since they possessed a strong design, low bias, correct estimates and a sound genetic causality framework for the association between some microbial taxa and AA risk.

Rising insight of the microbiome of humans has revolutionized present-day dermatological science, specifically that related to the scalp-a compartment that harbors a unique microbial community as well as is susceptible to many inflammatory as well as immune-mediated disease states [31]. The scalp microbiome consisting of commensal as well as opportunistic fungal as well as bacterial species is engaged with the upkeep of integrity of barrier function, sebaceous secretion control, as well as local modulation of the immune response of the host. The dysbiosis or rather disruption of such an ecological homeostasis, has been recorded over a wide range of scalp disease states such as dandruff, seborrheic dermatitis, AA, as well as AGA and consequently imparts an imperative of diagnostic as well as treatment strategies that take cognizance of the microbiome [31].

Comparative synthesis of the studies analyzed identified differential extents of agreement concerning clinical outcome, microbiome modulation and mechanistic insights. Alves et al. [17], Reygagne et al. [26] and Tsai et al. [28] collectively reported evidence of an enhanced duration of improvment of dandruff status and normalization of scalp microbiota after topical treatment with a probiotic/paraprobiotic preparation, thus demonstrating a consistent initial dermal response and enhanced barrier function. Consistency across these studies was observed concerning intervention duration (4-8 weeks), focus on sebostasis outcome and sparse adverse event reporting. Ho et al. [19] and Moreno-Arrones et al. [23], on the other hand, did not follow this pattern because of their observational study rather than clinical study designs and the lack of clinical study intervention as well as symptom follow-up, respectively, thus precluding their usefulness in the evaluation of therapeutics efficacy.

García-Navarro et al. [18] and Liang et al. [22] also released overlapping data in their reports of AGA and nonspecific hair loss, with increased counts of Lactobacillus plus improved hair parameters significantly. The results were directionally consistent with those of Yu et al. [30], also with improved immunology plus metabolism. Yu et al. [30] otherwise contributed separately for markers of the metabolic syndrome, which suggested an enhanced systemic effect, separating from the remainder in nature.

Rinaldi et al. [27] and Navarro-Belmonte et al. [24], who investigated alopecia areata, also considered a similar application of the SALT scale and reported reduction of lesions or an increase of hair growth. These results were consistent with those of the probiotics examined by Liang et al. [22] and Park et al. [25]; however, of noted interest was that Park et al. [25] applied a probiotic from a traditionally fermented food that elicited matching increases of hair density but did not provide taxonomic information of the involved microbes. Collectively, these intervention studies suggested that oral as well as topical modulation of microbes could make a difference of the outcome of hair restoration of varying subtypes of alopecia.

On the other hand, Ho et al. [19] and Jung et al. [20], both observational, demonstrated compositional alterations in the microbes and altered scalp parameters in AGA but lacked direct intervention and therefore had varying interpretability from controlled trials. Li et al. [21] also differed methodologically by using Mendelian randomization and demonstrating associations between AA risk and scalp microbial genera but without clinical endpoint data, leading to its findings being associative rather than interventional.

Woo et al. [30] presented fermented extract intervention data, including hair increases and TGF-β1 decrease, in agreement with Woo et al. [30] and Liang et al. [22] anti-inflammatory and hair-stimulating effects. Although other studies did not present microbiota or symptom results, Woo et al. [30] did not, restricting its combination with microbiome-targeted results.

The scalp cannot be separated from systemic networks of microbiome, most notably because of the gut microbiota. The gut-skin axis and the hypothesized gut-scalp axis by extension, involves intricate immunologic, metabolic and neuroendocrine interactions that facilitate two-way communication between intestinal microbiota and cutaneous tissue [32]. Intestinal dysbiosis, as an example, has been shown to affect systemic cytokine profiles, mucosal immune homeostasis and even T-cell-mediated immune responses-each of which is also relevant to the pathogenesis of scalp disorders like AA and AGA [32]. This helps to go some way to further underscore the necessity of considering both gut and scalp microbial dynamics in the treatment of hair and scalp pathology.

Longitudinal and interventional studies have also shown that endogenous and exogenous determinants like diet, genetics, regional treatments and environmental exposures can influence the scalp microbiome community. For instance, coconut oil treatment has been shown to enhance beneficial commensals like Cutibacterium acnes and Staphylococcus epidermidis, both of which are involved in lipid metabolism and pH homeostasis on the scalp surface [33]. Additionally, some microbial signatures like decreased Corynebacterium and increased Staphylococcus caprae have been proposed as early biomarkers for AA, which implies microbiome-based prognostic biomarkers [34].

Recent metagenomics and culture-independent profiling techniques have also substantiated microbial taxa that participate in scalp dysbiosis. In dandruff, for example, there is increased Malassezia restricta, Staphylococcus aureus and certain Proteobacteria abundance and reduction in positive skin commensals [35]. These alterations are not correlative but are associated with being implicated in barrier damage, cytokine overproduction and elevated sebum degradation-processes critical in symptom aggravation [35]. AA also demonstrates gut microbiota dysbalances with reduced abundances of Bacteroidetes and Firmicutes and elevated pro-inflammatory genera of Prevotella and Desulfovibrio, which can be implicated in Th17/Treg imbalance [36].

At the translational level, the use of microbiome-modulating agents, such as probiotics, postbiotics and prebiotics, is an highly effective adjunctive approach. Nonetheless, challenges remain regarding the development and regulatory acceptance of care products from microbiota, especially in terms of standardization of strain specificity, viability and delivery systems [37]. In addition, interindividual variation in microbiome composition and scalp physiology requires precision-based strategies that are personalized to an individual's microbial and clinical profiles.

Microbial interaction in the scalp is not limited to bacteria. Fungal species such as Malassezia globosa, Candida parapsilosis and Rhodotorula are involved in disease and health states. Interactions between bacterial populations and fungi build complex microbial networks that modulate host responses such as sebum metabolism and immune system regulation [38]. The complexity of interaction underscores the importance of profiling the microbiome comprehensively in scalp research. Mechanistically, microbial metabolites such as short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs), indoles and secondary bile acids have the potential to modulate distal epithelial responses through nuclear transcription factors and G-protein coupled receptors.

It has been shown through research that these mechanisms regulate keratinocyte proliferation, T-cell differentiation and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis signaling and thus provide mechanistic justification for the gut-scalp axis [39]. For example, declines in gut microbial diversity in alopecia areata (AA) patients have been associated with reduced production of regulatory SCFAs such as butyrate, which could play a pivotal role in regulating peripheral immune tolerance as well as follicular integrity [40-41]. Such evidence is in line with the hypothesis that certain microbial taxa or their metabolic by-products could function as upstream regulators of autoimmune or inflammatory pathway(s) specific to the scalp and thus underscore the significance of mechanistic research to reveal these associations.

This review emphasized a noted trend towards modest clinical and microbial improvement after microbiota-modulating therapies in scalp disease. The evidence suggested a possible role for gut and scalp microbiome modulation in disease expression modulation and symptom relief. However, due to constraints in methodological rigor, heterogeneity of evidence and exploratory nature of the evidence, definitive conclusions of efficacy or causality could not be drawn.

Recommendations and Future Implications

In the backdrop of the assessed evidence, future research must adopt traditional approaches to study design, with a focus on the use of standardized clinical severity scores and patient-reported outcomes that are validated for use, to allow comparability and consistency of trials. Characterization of the microbiome must utilize high-resolution sequencing methods, for instance, shotgun metagenomics or metabolomics integration, to yield strain-level and functional characterization of the microbial community. Research must incorporate detailed documentation of intervention parameters, such as strain-specific composition, dosage, frequency and duration, along with measures of adherence. The incorporation of relevant host biomarkers-e.g., inflammatory cytokines, markers of oxidative stress, hormonal and metabolic profiles and assessment of skin barrier function-would add significantly to mechanistic insight. Long-term follow-up must be used to determine microbiome stability and long-term clinical effects. Furthermore, larger, well-powered multicentre RCTs are required to confirm initial findings and determine the therapeutic potential of modulation of gut and scalp microbiomes in clinical dermatology.

Limitations

This review was consequently constrained by substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneities-among study types (RCTs, quasi-experimental, cross-sectional), treatment approaches (probiotics, pre-/post-/synbiotics; oral vs. topical; multi-component mixtures), dosing/duration and diverse outcome definitions-precluding a justifiable quantitative summary. Smaller sample sizes and narrow follow-up intervals constrained power to differentiate sustained effects or relapse profiles and increased susceptibility to small-study effects. Reporting of mechanistic outcome measures was spotty: inflammatory, metabolic and barrier biomarkers selectively chosen, assayed by diverse approaches and partially documented and numerous studies depended almost entirely on subjective endpoints with few parallel objective measures. From the microbiome standpoint, widespread use of 16S rRNA amplicon profiling eliminated taxonomic resolution at the genus-level or worse, while sequencing variable regions (e.g., V1-V3 vs. V3-V4), platforms and bioinformatic pipelines certainly introduced batch- and bioinformatic-related artifacts incompatible with cross-study comparisons; relative-abundance data never included accompanying absolute measurement of underlying quantity, complicating interpretation. These limitations as a group reduced certainty (downgrades for bias risk, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision) and limit generalizability. Future research needs to use harmonized core outcomes (e.g., standardized trichoscopic counts, dandruff indices, TEWL/pH panels), preregistered study plans and adequately powered multicenter RCTs with ≥6-12-month follow-up. Microbiome analyses need to favor shotgun metagenomics/ITS, standardized wet-lab and computation workflows, negative/ positive controls and absolute quantification (qPCR or spike-ins), with functional readouts (metabolomics/SCFAs) to relate taxa with mechanism.

Ethical Considerations

Not applicable. This article is a systematic review based on previously published studies and does not involve human participants or identifiable data.

1. Rinaldi, F. et al. “Diet and Microbiome Influence on Alopecia Areata: Experience from Case Reports.” Journal of Nutrition and Medicine Diet Care, vol. 5, 2019, p. 037. doi.org/10.23937/2572-3278.1510037.
2. Carrington, A.E. et al. “The Gut and Skin Microbiome in Alopecia: Associations and Interventions.” Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology, vol. 16, no. 10, October 2023, pp. 59-64. PMID: 37915336; PMCID: PMC10617895.
3. Wang, E. et al. “Is Propionibacterium Acnes Associated with Hair Casts and Alopecia?” International Journal of Trichology, vol. 4, no. 2, April 2012, pp. 93-97. doi:10.41 03/0974-7753.96907.
4. Yoon, Y.C. et al. “Stimulatory Effects of Extracellular Vesicles Derived from Leuconostoc Holzapfelii That Exists in Human Scalp on Hair Growth in Human Follicle Dermal Papilla Cells.” Current Issues in Molecular Biology, vol. 44, no. 2, February 2022, pp. 845-866. doi:10.3390/ cimb44020058.
5. Liu, Z. et al. “Gut Microbiome, Metabolome and Alopecia Areata.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 14, November 2023, p. 1281660. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2023.1281660.
6. Sánchez-Pellicer, P. et al. “How Our Microbiome Influences the Pathogenesis of Alopecia Areata.” Genes (Basel), vol. 13, no. 10, October 2022, p. 1860. doi:10.33 90/genes 13101860.
7. Choi, J.Y. et al. “Severe Scalp Psoriasis Microbiome Has Increased Biodiversity and Relative Abundance of Pseudomonas Compared to Mild Scalp Psoriasis.” Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 11, no. 23, November 2022, p. 7133. doi:10.3390/jcm11237133.
8. Saxena, R. et al. “Comparison of Healthy and Dandruff Scalp Microbiome Reveals the Role of Commensals in Scalp Health.” Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology, vol. 8, October 2018, p. 346. doi:10.3389/ fcimb.2018.00346.
9. Elaskandrany, M. et al. “Fungi, Host Immune Response, and Tumorigenesis.” American Journal of Physiology- Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology, vol. 321, no. 2, August 2021, pp. G213-G222. doi:10.1152/ajpgi. 00025.2021.
10. Nazarova, L. et al. “Targeting Gut-Brain Axis through Scalp-Abdominal Electroacupuncture in Parkinson’s Disease.” Brain Research, vol. 1790, September 2022, p. 147956. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2022.147956.
11. Barradah, R.K. et al. “Assessment of Hand or Foot Eczema and Contact Dermatitis among Car Mechanics.” European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 25, no. 10, May 2021, pp. 3737-3744. doi:10.26355/eurrev_ 202105_25941.
12. Lu, G. et al. “Washed Microbiota Transplantation Stopped the Deterioration of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis: The First Case Report and Narrative Review.” Journal of Biomedical Research, vol. 37, no. 1, June 2022, pp. 69-76. doi:10.7555/ JBR.36.20220088.
13. Li, J. et al. “Country-Specific Key Lifestyle Factors and Health Outcomes for Resource Allocation in the General Population: A Network Analysis across 29 Countries.” Journal of Global Health, vol. 15, January 2025, p. 04011. doi:10.7189/jogh.15.04011.
14. Page, M.J. et al. “PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated Guidance and Exemplars for Reporting Systematic Reviews.” BMJ, vol. 372, March 2021, p. n160. doi:10.1136/bmj.n160.
15. Hilton, M. “JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses.” Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, vol. 45, no. 3, December 2024, pp. 180-183. doi:10.29173/jchla29801.
16. Bezerra, C.T. et al. “Assessment of the Strength of Recommendation and Quality of Evidence: GRADE Checklist. A Descriptive Study.” São Paulo Medical Journal, vol. 140, no. 6, November-December 2022, pp. 829-836. doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2022.0043.R1.07042022.
17. de Jesus, G.F.A. et al. “Clinical Evaluation of Paraprobiotic-Associated Bifidobacterium Lactis CCT 7858 Anti-Dandruff Shampoo Efficacy: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial.” International Journal of Cosmetic Science, vol. 45, no. 5, October 2023, pp. 572-580. doi:10.1111/ ics.12850.
18. García-Navarro, A. et al. “Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Effect of Probiotic Intake on Androgenic Alopecia.” Nutrients, vol. 16, no. 17, August 2024, p. 2900. doi:10.3390/nu16172900.
19. Ho, B.S. et al. “Microbiome in the Hair Follicle of Androgenetic Alopecia Patients.” PLoS One, vol. 14, no. 5, May 2019, p. e0216330. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.021 6330.
20. Jung, D.R. et al. “Comparative Analysis of Scalp and Gut Microbiome in Androgenetic Alopecia: A Korean Cross-Sectional Study.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 13, 2022, p. 1076242. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2022.1076242.
21. Li, Z. et al. “Gut Microbiota, Skin Microbiota, and Alopecia Areata: A Mendelian Randomization Study.” Skin Research and Technology, vol. 30, 2024, p. e13845. doi:10. 1111/srt.13845.
22. Liang, C.H. et al. “Lactiplantibacillus Plantarum TCI999 Probiotic Promoted Hair Growth and Regulated Gut Microbiome: Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.” Journal of Probiotics and Health, vol. 10, 2022, p. 285.
23. Moreno-Arrones, O.M. et al. “Analysis of the Gut Microbiota in Alopecia Areata: Identification of Bacterial Biomarkers.” Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, vol. 34, no. 2, February 2020, pp. 400-405. doi:10.1111/jdv.15885.
24. Navarro-Belmonte, M.R. et al. “The Effect of an Oral Probiotic Mixture on Clinical Evolution and the Gut and Skin Microbiome in Patients with Alopecia Areata: A Randomized Clinical Trial.” Cosmetics, vol. 11, 2024, p. 119. doi:10.3390/cosmetics11040119.
25. Park, D.W. et al. “Do Kimchi and Cheonggukjang Probiotics as a Functional Food Improve Androgenetic Alopecia? A Clinical Pilot Study.” World Journal of Men’s Health, vol. 38, no. 1, January 2020, pp. 95-102. doi:10.5534/wjmh. 180119.
26. Peng, Y. et al. “Effect of an Oral Probiotic Formula on Scalp and Facial Skin Condition, Glucose, and Lipid Metabolism.” Functional Foods in Health and Disease, vol. 12, 2022, p. 394. doi:10.31989/ffhd.v12i7.944.
27. Reygagne, P. et al. “The Positive Benefit of Lactobacillus Paracasei NCC2461 ST11 in Healthy Volunteers with Moderate to Severe Dandruff.” Beneficial Microbes, vol. 8, no. 5, October 2017, pp. 671-680. doi:10.3920/BM20 16.0144.
28. Rinaldi, F. et al. “Efficacy of Postbiotics in a PRP-Like Cosmetic Product for the Treatment of Alopecia Area Celsi: A Randomized Double-Blinded Parallel-Group Study.” Dermatology and Therapy (Heidelberg), vol. 10, no. 3, June 2020, pp. 483-493. doi:10.1007/s13555-020-00369-9.
29. Tsai, W.H. et al. “Heat-Killed Lacticaseibacillus Paracasei GMNL-653 Ameliorates Human Scalp Health by Regulating Scalp Microbiome.” BMC Microbiology, vol. 23, 2023, p. 121. doi:10.1186/s12866-023-02870-5.
30. Woo, Y.M. et al. “Hair Growth Effect of TS-SCLF from Schisandra Chinensis Extract Fermented with Lactobacillus Plantarum.” Microbiology and Biotechnology Letters, vol. 50, 2022, pp. 533-547. doi:10.48022/mbl.2206.06011.
31. Shah, R.R. et al. “Scalp Microbiome: A Guide to Better Understanding Scalp Diseases and Treatments.” Archives of Dermatological Research, vol. 316, no. 8, July 2024, p. 495.
32. De Pessemier, B. et al. “Gut-Skin Axis: Current Knowledge of the Interrelationship between Microbial Dysbiosis and Skin Conditions.” Microorganisms, vol. 9, no. 2, February 2021, p. 353.
33. Saxena, R. et al. “Longitudinal Study of the Scalp Microbiome Suggests Coconut Oil to Enrich Healthy Scalp Commensals.” Scientific Reports, vol. 11, March 2021, pp. 1-4.
34. Won, E.J. et al. “A Potential Predictive Role of the Scalp Microbiome Profiling in Patients with Alopecia Areata: Staphylococcus Caprae, Corynebacterium, and Cutibacterium Species.” Microorganisms, vol. 10, no. 5, April 2022, p. 864.
35. Rasheedkhan, R.V. et al. “Decoding Scalp Health and Microbiome Dysbiosis in Dandruff.” bioRxiv, May 2024, p. 2024-05.
36. Brzychcy, K. et al. “Gut Microbiota in Alopecia Areata.” Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postępy Dermatologii i Alergologii, vol. 39, no. 6, December 2022, pp. 1162-1170.
37. Kamat, S. “Microbiome and Hair Care Products: Opportunities and Challenges.” Hair Care Products: Efficacy, Safety and Global Regulation, October 2024, pp. 125-132.
38. Grimshaw, S.G. et al. “The Diversity and Abundance of Fungi and Bacteria on the Healthy and Dandruff Affected Human Scalp.” PLoS One, vol. 14, no. 12, December 2019, p. e0225796.
39. Chai, J. et al. “The Gut-Skin Axis: Interaction of Gut Microbiome and Skin Diseases.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 15, June 2024, p. 1427770.
40. Lee, J.H. et al. “Exploring the Role of Gut Microbiota in Patients with Alopecia Areata.” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 25, no. 8, April 2024, p. 4256.
41. Bi, D. et al. “The Causal Relationship between Gut Microbiota and Alopecia Areata: A Mendelian Randomization Analysis.” Frontiers in Microbiology, vol. 15, July 2024, p. 1431646.
42. Yin, C.S. et al. “Efficacy of Probiotics in Hair Growth and Dandruff Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Heliyon, vol. 10, no. 9, April 2024, p. e29539. doi:10.1016/ j.heliyon.2024.e29539.