ArticleInternational journal of cosmetic science2022
Analysis of 275 DIY recipes for eye cosmetics and their possible safety issues.
Article in International journal of cosmetic science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Cosmetic Preservative Potential and Chemical Composition ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Evaluating Neighborhood-Level Differences in Hair Product Safety by Environmental Working Group Ratings among Retailers in Boston, Massachusetts.Environmental health perspectives · 2023Article
- The Role of Essential Oils in Homemade Cosmetics: A Study of 140 Recipes.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2023Review
- Analysis of 275 DIY recipes for eye cosmetics and their possible safety issues.International journal of cosmetic science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Some consumers have become very suspicious of certain health products such as medicines, medical devices and cosmetics. This can lead them to choose to make such products themselves. The aim of this work was therefore to analyse recipes for eye makeup and makeup removal products, as well as eyelash and eye contour care products. We collected recipes for do-it-yourself products found on blogs and social media (YouTube channels, Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram and TikTok) in French and English and then analyse their composition as well as how practical it is to make these recipes. We compiled and studied 275 recipes for products that can be used in or around the eye (periocular area). This work has shown that the quantities of the various ingredients are very imprecise, that the proposed substances are not suitable for the intended use and that the preservation of the finished products is not sufficiently guaranteed. The results obtained suggest that recipes for products intended for use in the eye or in the periocular area are not safe to use and that their use is likely to have relatively serious consequences.
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.