ReviewThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2026
Review of Ethics and Use of Animal-Based Surgical Products in Dermatology.
Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal- and human-derived materials are commonly used in dermatologic and cosmetic products, yet their presence is often unclear to clinicians and patients.
objectiveTo examine ethical and informed-consent implications of these materials, particularly when they conflict with patients' religious, cultural, or personal values.
methodsA narrative literature search and product formulary audit were conducted on PubMed through February 2025, augmented by United States Food and Drug Administration summaries and manufacturer dossiers. Data extraction focused on material origin, clinical use, outcomes, adverse events, and labeling transparency.
resultsNumerous dermatologic products contain animal- or human-derived components, such as rooster-comb-derived hyaluronic acid, bovine collagen grafts, shark-derived glycosaminoglycans, and human-derived materials. The source of these materials is frequently absent or inconsistently reported in labeling, limiting clinicians' ability to counsel patients effectively. Studies demonstrate that when informed and given alternatives, most patients prefer nonanimal-derived options. Advances in synthetic and bioengineered materials make such alternatives increasingly feasible. LIMITATIONS: This review is not exhaustive. Given the extent of dermatologic and cosmetic products on the market and variability in ingredient disclosure, some animal- or human-derived materials may not have been captured. Rapid product innovation and inconsistent reporting of material origins further limit comprehensive identification.
conclusionImproved transparency regarding product origins is essential for meaningful informed consent in dermatology. Incorporating brief intake screening questions and updating consent forms to disclose material sources may enhance shared decision-making, patient trust, and ethically aligned, patient-centered care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42877890PMC13668099What 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.