ArticleClinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.)2024
Evaluation of the Safety and Tolerability of Lumify Eye Illuminations Cosmetic Products.
Article in Clinical ophthalmology (Auckland, N.Z.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Collagen Hydrolysates from Animal By-Products in Topical Cosmetic Formulations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
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
Purpose: Cosmetic products applied to the periocular area can cause skin sensitivity reactions, and manufacturers routinely test the safety and tolerability of products in development. This research was sponsored by Bausch + Lomb to evaluate three Lumify Eye Illuminations products: a lash and brow serum, a hydra-gel eye cream, and a micellar water eye makeup remover. Methods: A cumulative irritation test (CIT) study and a repeated insult patch test (RIPT) study enrolled adult males or females with no known sensitivities to cosmetic products. Three clinical safety studies enrolled adult females with self-reported characteristics targeted by each product, which was applied in a manner consistent with expected use for 8 or 12 weeks. Results: In CIT (n=34) and RIPT (n=201) studies, faint/minimal erythema reactions were observed in 0% to 2.9% of participants; there were no moderate or severe reactions. No safety signals were observed in participants who completed clinical safety studies for lash and brow serum (n=66 enrolled, n=55 completed [83%]), eye cream (n=61 enrolled, n=52 completed [85%]), or eye makeup remover (n=80 enrolled, n=68 completed [85%]). No clinically relevant changes in visual acuity or ophthalmologic slit-lamp examination findings were noted. No participants reported ocular sensations of burning/stinging, foreign-body sensation, or soreness. At the final clinical safety study assessment, mild cutaneous erythema (as graded by the investigator) was reported for one participant (eye cream study); no other prespecified signs of cutaneous irritation (eg, edema, dryness) were observed. A treatment-related adverse event that led to study discontinuation was experienced by one participant in the eye makeup remover study (bilateral periorbital swelling). Conclusion: Findings from rigorously conducted irritation testing and clinical safety studies indicated that these products were safe and well tolerated. Increased availability of data regarding ocular and cutaneous safety of cosmetic products can inform consumer decision-making and eye care provider recommendations.
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.