ArticleCureus2026
A Standardized In Vitro Framework for Evaluating Hair Care Products: Hair Parameters and Efficacy Performance.
Article in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing demand for scientifically consistent methodologies to support the assessment of multifunctional cosmetic hair care claims while minimizing variability associated with in vitro testing. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to develop a preliminary standardized in vitro human hair-tress-based framework for the comparative assessment of multiple cosmetic hair performance parameters under controlled laboratory conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a controlled in vitro standardization study conducted on standardized human hair tresses. Hair samples were randomly allocated into test and control groups. A structured damage-induction protocol was implemented to simulate real-world hair exposure, including chemical damage (surfactant washes), thermal damage (high-temperature styling), photodamage (ultraviolet A exposure), and environmental damage (pollution-related stress via ambient air exposure). Multiple evaluation methodologies were applied and standardized to assess hair sensory parameters, hair breakage, tensile strength, split-end repair/reduction, hair shine, hair volume, color retention, moisture retention, frizz control, and microscopic evaluation of hair shaft parameters. All assessments were performed using instrumental, image-based, and sensory techniques under controlled laboratory conditions.
resultsApplication of the test product to standardized hair tresses resulted in measurable changes across several evaluated hair parameters, showing improvement in hair breakage count by 21.00 ± 6.07 counts, hair tensile strength by 25437.01 ± 6169.93 gm/cm², hair shine by 2.15 ± 0.30, hair volume by 499.66 ± 34.30 cm², and reduction in hair frizziness by 89.20 ± 5.93 cm². In contrast, the control group did not demonstrate any notable improvement in the assessed parameters following the application procedure. Hair breakage increased to 51.50 ± 10.95, hair tensile strength slightly decreased to 23468.01 ± 7519.68, hair shine reduced to 1.40 ± 0.17, hair volume was reduced to 423.16 ± 15.81, and hair frizziness increased to 133.62 ± 8.56.
conclusionsThe present study proposes a preliminary integrated in vitro hair-tress-based framework for evaluating the multifunctional performance of cosmetic hair under controlled laboratory conditions. The methodology demonstrated measurable changes in multiple hair parameters following product application, supporting its potential utility for comparative cosmetic hair assessment and claim support.
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.