SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical nutrition2026
Efficacy and safety of hydrolyzed collagen supplementation on skin health outcomes: a systematic literature review of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in European journal of clinical nutrition, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Oral hydrolyzed collagen (HC) supplementation is widely recommended for improving age-related skin changes. However, clinical evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic literature review (SLR) synthesizes the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy, safety, and quality of life (QoL) outcomes of HC supplementation in adults. We systematically searched Embase, MEDLINE, and MEDLINE In-Process from inception through April 1, 2023, to identify RCTs assessing oral HC versus placebo or active comparators. Outcomes of interest included skin hydration, elasticity, wrinkles, transepidermal water loss (TEWL), safety, and QoL. Risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias v2.0, and results were synthesized descriptively. Twenty-five RCTs (sample sizes ranging from 13 to 236 participants) were included. While most studies were conducted in healthy volunteers, seven studies enrolled patients with chronic disease conditions. HC supplementation demonstrated significant improvements over placebo in key skin parameters: skin hydration (improved in 10 of 15 trials), skin elasticity (10 of 13 trials), and wrinkle depth or volume (9 of 10 trials). Results regarding TEWL were less consistent. HC supplementation was generally well-tolerated, with a low incidence of adverse events. QoL outcomes, assessed in seven studies primarily among osteoarthritis or rheumatoid arthritis patients, showed variable improvements depending on the assessment tool and study population. The majority of included trials were rated as having a high risk of bias. Preliminary evidence suggests that HC supplementation may offer dermatological benefits, but high-quality, standardized, adequately powered, and longer-term RCTs are needed to confirm its efficacy and safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42342959What 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.