ReviewJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
A Comprehensive Analysis of the Blurring Boundary Between Cosmetic Applications and Medical Treatment.
Review in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Gut-Brain-Skin Axis: From Mechanistic Insights to Translational Applications in Neurocosmetics.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDermatology and cosmetology have traditionally been regarded as distinct disciplines, with dermatology focused on the diagnosis and treatment of disease and cosmetology aimed at enhancing aesthetic appearance. In recent years, this distinction has become increasingly blurred due to technological advancements, expanding clinical applications, regulatory gaps, and sociocultural influences.
aimsThis review aims to examine the factors contributing to the blurring boundary between cosmetic and medical dermatologic practices and to evaluate its regulatory, ethical, and patient safety implications.
methodsA narrative review of peer-reviewed literature, international regulatory frameworks, and professional guidelines was conducted. Dual-use dermatologic interventions, including botulinum toxin, dermal fillers, and laser- and energy-based devices, were analyzed across cosmetic and medical indications. Legal approaches in different jurisdictions and sociocultural drivers, such as social media-influenced aesthetic expectations, were also assessed.
resultsThe review demonstrates that many dermatologic procedures are positioned simultaneously as cosmetic and medical interventions, creating ambiguity in regulation and professional accountability. The absence of a universally accepted legal definition for "cosmeceuticals," along with the expanding off-label use of aesthetic technologies, contributes to inconsistent oversight and potential risks to patient safety. Increased patient demand driven by idealized aesthetic standards further complicates expectation management and clinical decision-making.
conclusionsThe convergence of cosmetic and medical dermatology highlights the need for clearer legal definitions, strengthened regulatory frameworks, and well-defined professional standards. A patient safety-centered approach, supported by improved public awareness and professional accountability, is essential to addressing the challenges associated with this blurred boundary.
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.