Cited by 79Hair Growth and DisordersOcular Surface and Contact LensGlaucoma and retinal disorders

Eyelash growth in subjects treated with bimatoprost: A multicenter, randomized, double-masked, vehicle-controlled, parallel-group study

Smith, Stacy, Fagien, Steven, Whitcup, Scott M., Ledon, Fred, Somogyi, Christine, Weng, Emily, Beddingfield, Frederick C.·2012·Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology

Abstract

Background Bimatoprost 0.03% is associated with increased growth and prominence of eyelashes. Objective We sought to compare the safety and efficacy of once-daily bimatoprost 0.03% versus vehicle in increasing eyelash length, thickness, and darkness after topical administration to upper eyelid margins. Methods In this 5-month study, subjects were randomized to receive once-daily bimatoprost 0.03% (n = 137) or vehicle (n = 141). The primary end point was eyelash prominence assessed by the investigator global eyelash assessment scale. Secondary efficacy measures included eyelash length, thickness, and darkness measured by digital image analysis and patient-reported outcomes. Safety data included adverse event monitoring and ophthalmic examinations. Results A higher percentage of subjects treated with bimatoprost 0.03% (78.1%) versus vehicle (18.4%) demonstrated at least a 1-grade increase in global eyelash assessment score at week 16 (P < .0001). Subjects in the bimatoprost 0.03% group also had statistically significantly greater increases in eyelash length, thickness, and darkness (P < .0001) than those in the vehicle group. For adverse events, only conjunctival hyperemia occurred at a statistically significant higher incidence rate in the bimatoprost 0.03% versus the vehicle group (P = .03). Limitations Short-term duration of the trial was a limitation; black subjects were not enrolled secondary to technical requirements of digital image analysis. Conclusion Bimatoprost 0.03% was found to be effective at enhancing eyelashes in adults with a very good safety profile.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jaad.2011.06.005

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Bimatoprost 0.03% has enhanced eyelash prominence in clinical trials enrolling mostly Caucasian subjects.

    “Bimatoprost 0.03 % has enhanced eyelash prominence in clinical trials enrolling mostly Caucasian subjects.”
  • In both the Japanese study and the North American cohort, GEA score improvements were significantly correlated with greater patient-reported satisfaction with eyelashes.

    “Moreover, in both populations, the GEA score improvements were significantly correlated with greater patient-reported satisfaction with eyelashes, as measured with ESQ-9 in the current study and with the original 23-item ESQ in the North American study [15].”
  • In both the Japanese study 1 and the North American cohort, improvement in eyelash prominence was maintained at the post-treatment assessment at month 5.

    “In both populations, the improvement in eyelash prominence was maintained at the post-treatment assessment at month 5.”
  • The types of adverse events reported in the current trials were consistent with those of prior studies investigating mostly Caucasian populations with hypotrichosis of the eyelashes.

    “The types of AEs reported in the current trials were consistent with those of prior studies investigating mostly Caucasian populations with hypotrichosis of the eyelashes [15, 17].”
  • The rate of conjunctival hyperemia reported at biomicroscopy was consistent with that previously reported in a mostly Caucasian cohort from a prior study.

    “The rate of conjunctival hyperemia reported at biomicroscopy was consistent with that previously reported in a mostly Caucasian cohort from a prior study [15].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Smith, S., Fagien, S., Whitcup, S. M., Ledon, F., Somogyi, C., Weng, E., & Beddingfield, F. C.
Affiliations
  • Therapeutics Clinical Research (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Corresponding author
Smith, Stacy
Venue
Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-05
Volume
66
Issue
5
Pages
801-806
ISSN
0190-9622 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2069794340
Cited by
79
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 2
FWCI
6.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Hair Growth and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ocular Surface and Contact Lens
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Ophthalmology › Glaucoma and retinal disorders
Keywords
bimatoprost, eyelash length, topical prostamide, conjunctival hyperemia, adverse events
MeSH terms
Bimatoprost, Administration, Topical, Adult, Aged, Amides, California, Cloprostenol, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Drug Administration Schedule, Eyelashes, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Reference Values, Treatment Outcome, Risk Assessment, Cross-Over Studies, Young Adult, Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review