ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2024
Development of Home Beauty Devices for Facial Rejuvenation: Establishment of Efficacy Evaluation System.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluating the Effectiveness and Safety of Home Facial Antiaging Beauty Devices Based on Meridian and Acupoint Theory.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Trial
- Radiofrequency technology as an anti-aging intervention: clinical efficacy in reversing senescence-driven skin laxity and age-related dermal degeneration.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Assessment of a Helium/Argon-Generated Cold Atmospheric Plasma Device's Safety Utilizing a Pig Model.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Bridging clinic to home: domestic devices in dermatological diagnostics and treatments.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Home beauty devices for facial rejuvenation utilizing technologies such as radiofrequency, microcurrent, and light emitting diode have gained widespread attention due to their claimed ability to improve skin tightness and elasticity, making them popular among consumers. However, there is controversy within the industry regarding the effectiveness and safety of these devices. Objective: This study aims to verify the safety and effectiveness of these home beauty devices in treating skin aging based on relevant efficacy evaluation indicators. Methods: A systematic search of PubMed and web of science was conducted to include original research literature on the efficacy of home beauty devices for facial rejuvenation over the past two decades. The selected literature was processed and analyzed based on efficacy evaluation indicators such as sample size, follow-up period, experimental results, adverse reactions, and others. Results: After screening, a total of 18 clinical studies were included. A comprehensive analysis of the experimental results and adverse reaction indicators from existing literature revealed that home beauty devices for facial rejuvenation can improve skin aging to a certain extent. Apart from transient redness and swelling, no other adverse reactions were observed. Conclusion: Despite the variety of home beauty devices for facial rejuvenation available in the market, corresponding research reports are limited. Existing studies suffer from issues such as small sample sizes and short follow-up periods, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive efficacy evaluation system. Furthermore, the physical stimulation of meridian acupoints by home beauty devices for facial rejuvenation may meet the multi-dimensional anti-aging needs of patients, suggesting a potential direction for future research.
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.