Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39198280›Full record

SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025

Regenerative Aesthetics: A Genuine Frontier or Just a Facet of Regenerative Medicine: A Systematic Review.

Eqram Rahman, Jean D A Carruthers, Parinitha Rao, Hany Niamey Abu-Farsakh, Patricia E Garcia, Sotirios Ioannidis, Karim Sayed, Wolfgang G Philipp-Dormston, Ash Mosahebi, William Richard Webb

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Eqram Rahman *Research and Innovation Hub, Innovation Aesthetics, London, WC2H 9JQ, UK.
Jean D A CarruthersDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Parinitha RaoThe Skin Address, Aesthetic Dermatology Practice, Bangalore, India.
Hany Niamey Abu-FarsakhIstishari Hospital, Amman, Jordan.
Patricia E GarciaPrivate Practice in Dermatology, Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
Sotirios IoannidisPlastic Surgery Clinic, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Karim SayedNomi Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Wolfgang G Philipp-DormstonHautzentrum Koeln, Cologne, Germany.
Ash MosahebiRoyal Free Hospital, Hampstead, UK.
William Richard Webb *Research and Innovation Hub, Innovation Aesthetics, London, WC2H 9JQ, UK. w.r.webb1@icloud.com.ORCID 0000-0002-2701-626X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRegenerative aesthetics claims to enhance cosmetic outcomes through advanced biological interventions like Stem cell and Exosome therapy, Polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN), Photobiomodulation, bioactive peptides and treatment for cellular senescence yet lacks substantial scientific and regulatory validation.

objectiveTo evaluate the scientific and clinical foundations of regenerative medicine techniques in non-surgical aesthetics and assess the legitimacy of regenerative aesthetics as a medical specialty.

methodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, searching databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published in the last ten years. We included 19 studies, comprising 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 prospective studies, focusing on interventions that purportedly use regenerative medicine principles in aesthetic applications.

resultsThe review highlights a prevalent gap in molecular and clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of regenerative aesthetics. Despite the robust design of the included RCTs and prospective studies, there remains a significant lack of consistent, high-quality evidence proving the effectiveness of these interventions. Issues such as inadequate reporting, unclear molecular mechanisms, and absence of long-term safety data were common.

conclusionThe field of regenerative aesthetics lacks the necessary scientific rigour and regulatory compliance to be recognized as a legitimate medical specialty. This review underscores the need for stringent scientific validation and regulatory oversight to ensure patient safety and treatment efficacy before these techniques can be recommended for clinical use. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Indexed as

Cosmetic TechniquesEstheticsRegenerative MedicineFemaleHumansMaleRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRejuvenationBioactive peptidesCellular senescenceExosomeNon-surgical aestheticsPhotobiomodulationPolydeoxyribonucleotideRegenerative medicineStem cellSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID39198280

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.