Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35778881›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of cosmetic science2022

Multifaceted amelioration of cutaneous photoageing by (0.3%) retinol.

Kieran T Mellody, Eleanor J Bradley, Bezaleel Mambwe, Lindsay F Cotterell, Orsolya Kiss, Poonam Halai, Zeena Loftus, Mike Bell, Tamara W Griffiths, Christopher E M Griffiths and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Multifaceted amelioration of cutaneous photoageing by (0.3%) retinol.International journal of cosmetic science · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Kieran T MellodyCentre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8164-9148
Eleanor J BradleyNo7 Beauty Company, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Nottingham, UK.
Bezaleel MambweCentre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8751-1425
Lindsay F CotterellCentre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5945-5443
Orsolya KissCentre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1455-0252
Poonam HalaiCentre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1867-3188
Zeena LoftusNo7 Beauty Company, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Nottingham, UK.
Mike BellNo7 Beauty Company, Walgreens Boots Alliance, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8385-1278
Tamara W GriffithsCentre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.
Christopher E M GriffithsCentre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5371-4427
Rachel E B WatsonCentre for Dermatology Research, The University of Manchester & Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5162-7503
Manchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBWalgreens Boots Alliance (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

NIHR Manchester BRC BRC/DERM/001 MFTWalgreens Boots Alliance
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough retinol skin care products improve the appearance of photoaged skin, there is a need for an effective retinol concentration that provides skin benefits without irritation.

objectiveTo compare the efficacy of topical 0.1%, 0.3% and 1% retinol in remodelling the cutaneous architecture in an in vivo experimental patch test study, and to determine tolerance of the most effective formulations when used in a daily in-use escalation study.

methodsFor the patch test study, retinol products were applied under occlusion, to the extensor forearm of photoaged volunteers (n = 5; age range 66-84 years), and 3 mm skin biopsies obtained after 12 days. Effects of different retinol concentrations, and a vehicle control, on key epidermal and dermal biomarkers of cellular proliferation and dermal remodelling were compared to untreated baseline. Separately, participants (n = 218) recorded their tolerance to 0.3% or 1% retinol over a six-week, approved regimen, which gradually increased the facial applications to once nightly.

resultsRetinol treatment induced a stepwise increase in epidermal thickness and induced the expression of stratum corneum proteins, filaggrin and KPRP. 0.3% retinol and 1% retinol were comparably effective at inducing keratinocyte proliferation in the epidermis, whilst reducing e-cadherin expression. Fibrillin-rich microfibril deposition was increased following treatment with 0.3% and 1% retinol (p < 0.01); other dermal components remained unaltered (e.g., fibronectin, collagen fibrils, elastin), and no evidence of local inflammation was detected. The in-use study found that 0.3% retinol was better tolerated than 1% retinol, with fewer and milder adverse events reported (χ

conclusionsThis study suggests that 1% and 0.3% retinol concentrations were similarly effective at remodelling photodamaged skin in an in vivo model of long-term use. Use of 0.3% retinol in the escalation study was associated with fewer adverse reactions when applied daily. Hence, 0.3% retinol may be better tolerated than 1% retinol, thereby allowing longer-term topical application.

Indexed as

Skin AgingVitamin AAgedAged, 80 and overEpidermisFaceHumansSkinVitamin Aformulationphotodamageskin barrierskin physiology/structure

Identifiers

PMID35778881
PMCPMC9826105
OpenAlexW4283774607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.