Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2024
A Randomized, Single-Center, Double-Blind, Controlled Case Study Evaluating Procedure Pairing of a Neurocosmetic Postprocedure Cream With Radiofrequency Microneedling for Facial Rejuvenation.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Novel Neurocosmetic Postprocedure Cream for Optimal Recovery and Tolerability From Energy-Based Devices.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2025Trial
- Efficacy and Safety of a Topical Skincare Regimen with Tripeptide/Hexapeptide following Aesthetic Procedures: Analysis of Two Randomized, Split-Face Trials in Asian Subjects.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiofrequency (RF) microneedling produces patient discomfort which deters patients from completing the recommended treatment series.
objectiveThe primary objective was to determine the tolerability, safety, and efficacy of a neurocosmetic postprocedure cream post-RF microneedling in reducing patient discomfort and enhancing recovery across the length of the study and, secondarily, to evaluate against a leading comparator. The third objective was to evaluate the efficacy of the neurocosmetic on self-perceived improvement and objective grading. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn Institutional Review Board (IRB) approved, fourteen-day, randomized, single-center, double-blind, controlled clinical case study was conducted with 11 healthy female subjects, 6 randomized to the neurocosmetic and 5 to the comparator cell. Following a 7-day washout period, subjects received RF microneedling (face and neck) and applied the postprocedure cream twice daily for 7 days. Objective and subjective tolerability, self-assessments, and clinical photography were performed immediately postprocedure, 24 h, three and seven days following the procedure.
resultsThe neurocosmetic was tolerable and safe. Erythema and stinging immediately decreased postprocedure, postneurocosmetic application. After 24 h, 83% favorably agreed the neurocosmetic "reduced irritation on the skin post-procedure," and after 7 days, 100% favorably agreed "experience with the product was positive and I would be interested in returning for a second treatment." The neurocosmetic reduced skin tone redness in the face and neck faster and to a greater degree when measured against a comparator.
conclusionThe neurocosmetic postprocedure cream improved patient discomfort and enhanced recovery when used immediately post-RF microneedling and after 7 days. IRB PROTOCOL NUMBER: Pro00064211.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.