ReviewJournal of family medicine and primary care2019
Cosmetovigilance: A review of the current literature.
Review in Journal of family medicine and primary care, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Microbial contamination of medicines, medical devices, cosmetics, child and personal care products: a comprehensive review of secondary contamination risks in home-use settings.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- From laboratory to real-world exposure: correlating cosmetic patch test results with large-scale consumer safety data from e-commerce platforms.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating reporting trends and adverse effects of cosmetic products in Saudi Arabia based on SFDA cosmovigilance data.Scientific reports · 2025Observational
- Article
- Actions to mitigate ocular adverse events related to hair styling cosmetics in Brazil: a descriptive and correlational study (2022-2024).Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Article
- Use of Cosmetics and Adverse Cosmetic Events Among Female Nurses: Need for a Cosmetovigilance System.Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2024Article
- Questionnaire-Based Study of 392 Women in Abbottabad, Pakistan, to Evaluate the Types of Cosmetic Products Purchased Between December 2018 and March 2019 and Their Associated Adverse Events.Medical science monitor basic research · 2024Article
- Analysis and Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions of Cosmetics at a Tertiary Care Hospital.Cureus · 2024Article
- Review
- Nutrivigilance: the road less traveled.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Socio-historical analysis of the social importance of pharmacovigilance.Frontiers in sociology · 2022Review
- Cosmetovigilance: A New Concept for the Residency Curriculum.HCA healthcare journal of medicine · 2020Article
- A Cross-sectional Survey-based Study of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Towards Uses of Cosmetics and Cosmetovigilance in India.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The term "pharmacovigilance" defines the activities related to the collection, detection, assessment, monitoring, and prevention of adverse reactions occurring with medications. Recently, the spectrum of "-vigilance" has broadened to include safety of herbal products and cosmetic products as well. "Cosmetovigilance" was introduced as a new term used for defining surveillance carried out by industry to address the safety of cosmetic products. It was first used in literature by Vigan (1997) to refer to the monitoring of cosmetic product safety. Today, it is recognized globally as a concept of public health. For this systematic review, a PubMed search was conducted in July 2018 for the term "cosmetovigilance."
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.