Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
A Randomized, Double-Blinded Pilot Study Comparing Synthetic Versus Human-Derived Topical Epidermal Growth Factor for Facial Rejuvenation and Psychosocial Perception.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTopical growth factor-containing cosmeceuticals are widely used to improve visible signs of facial photoaging. Interest has increased in peptide-based alternatives that aim to support similar regenerative pathways without relying on human-derived biologics.
aimTo compare the clinical efficacy, tolerability, and exploratory psychosocial perception outcomes of a topical recombinant epidermal growth factor (REGF), oligopeptide-1, serum with a human-derived growth factor (operationally labeled HDEGF) serum.
methodsThis was a 12-week, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, parallel-group pilot trial involving 20 adult female participants (50-65 years), predominantly non-Hispanic White with Fitzpatrick Skin Types II and III with moderate to severe facial photoaging. Participants applied their assigned serum twice daily and used a standardized cleanser and sunscreen regimen. Primary endpoints included investigator-rated changes in skin texture and firmness. Secondary endpoints included participant-reported satisfaction. Tertiary endpoints evaluated psychosocial perception using standardized photographs rated by blinded lay evaluators.
resultsInvestigator ratings favored the REGF cohort for improvements in skin texture and firmness at later study visits, while global wrinkle severity ratings changed minimally in both cohorts. Participants in the REGF cohort reported higher satisfaction across multiple questionnaire items. In exploratory lay-evaluator assessments, small between-visit differences were observed in select perception domains, including estimated age.
conclusionIn this pilot study, the REGF formulation was associated with greater improvement in selected investigator- and participant-reported outcomes compared with the HDEGF formulation over 12 weeks. Perception-based findings are exploratory and limited by the non-validated nature of the rating instrument. Interpretation is further limited by the small, female-only sample and short follow-up; larger, longer, and more diverse studies are warranted.
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.