A Prospective, Randomized, Double-blind, Split-face Clinical Trial Comparing the Efficacy of Two Topical Human Growth Factors for the Rejuvenation of the Aging Face.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

1. Round Table Discussion: Aesthetic Treatment Considerations for the Perimenopausal & Menopausal Patient.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026
   Review
2. Preventive and Therapeutic Interventions in Solar Elastosis and Photoaging: A Comprehensive Systematic Review.Biomedicines · 2025
   Review
3. Management patterns for skin aging among Saudi dermatologists: A questionnaire-based study.Journal of family medicine and primary care · 2021
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.