Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2021
Prospective, Randomized, Comparative Study of the Cutaneous Effects of a Topical Body Treatment Compared to a Bland Moisturizer.
Trial report in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improved Skin Quality with a Novel Topical Body Serum: Distal Thighs and Back of Hands.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Trial
- TriHex Technology and Reversal of Solar Elastosis: Dispelling Some Myths.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Review
- Prejuvenation: The Global New Anti-Aging Trend.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOver time human skin thins and loses elasticity; topical treatments attempt to reverse this process.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of TransFORM Body Treatment (TFB) in skin rejuvenation compared to a bland moisturizer on the extensor and volar forearms.
methodsBlinded participants were given 2 products to apply on the designated forearms with follow-up at 4, 8, and 12 weeks. Measurements included skin thickness, photography, dermatopathology, cutaneous elasticity determined by 2 different methods, and patient-reported outcomes. All were compared to baseline.
resultsChanges between bland moisturizer and TFB were recorded for the following parameters. (1) Roughness: extensor -0.09 mm for bland moisturizer and -0.26 mm for TFB (P = 0.174); volar 0.01 mm for bland moisturizer and -0.23 mm for TFB (P = 0.004). (2) Recoil velocity: volar -56°/sec for bland moisturizer and -24°/sec for TFB (P = 0.61); extensor -95°/sec for bland moisturizer and -63°/sec for TFB (P = 0.57). Retraction speed: volar -3.25 ms for bland moisturizer and -20.08 ms for TFB (P = 0.33); extensor -2.17 ms for bland moisturizer and -10.83 ms for TFB (P = 0.66). Histologically, TFB resulted in an increase in mucopolysaccharide content, new collagen, and number of elastin fibers in the papillary dermis. Changes in the Rao-Goldman score were also observed: volar -0.17 for bland moisturizer and -0.33 for TFB (P = 0.25); extensor -0.08 for bland moisturizer and -0.17 for TFB (P = 0.36).
conclusionsHistology showed production of new collagen and elastin. Quantification of changes in skin thickness, skin retraction speed, and skin recoil velocity showed trends that agree with the visual data. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4:
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.