Comparison of the efficacy and safety of using 0.01% versus 0.03% bimatoprost for the treatment of eyebrow hypotrichosis: A randomized, double‐blind, split‐face, comparative study
Abstract
Background: Previous studies have proven the efficacy and safety of 0.01% and 0.03% bimatoprost for the treatment of eyebrow hypotrichosis; however, there is no comparison study between both concentrations. Aims: To compare the efficacy and safety between 0.01% and 0.03% bimatoprost for the treatment of eyebrow hypotrichosis. Patients/Methods: This prospective, randomized, double‐blind, split‐face clinical study was conducted in 30 patients with eyebrow hypotrichosis. Each side of eyebrow of individual patients was randomly assigned for 0.01% and 0.03% bimatoprost, applied on each eyebrow once daily. Eyebrow density, diameter, the Global Eyebrow Assessment scale, 7‐point rating scale, and patient satisfaction were evaluated. Side effects were also recorded. Results: Both 0.01% and 0.03% bimatoprost significantly improved eyebrow density and diameter (P < .05), although there were no statistically significant differences in changes in eyebrow density and diameter from baseline between both concentrations (P = .96 and .84, respectively). Additionally, patients significantly preferred 0.03% bimatoprost in terms of clinical improvement and satisfaction (P = .04 and .003, respectively). Conclusions: Both 0.01% and 0.03% bimatoprost are effective and safe for the treatment of eyebrow hypotrichosis. Bimatoprost 0.03% is superior to its 0.01% counterpart, albeit without statistical significance.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Suchonwanit et al. compared bimatoprost 0.03% versus 0.01% in 30 patients with eyebrow hypotrichosis; both concentrations significantly improved eyebrow density and diameter (P < 0.05) with non-significant superiority of 0.03% to 0.01%.
“In their recent randomized double-blinded split face trial, Suchonwanit et al. [22] compared application of bimatoprost 0.03% versus bimatoprost 0.01% in 30 patients with eyebrow hypotichosis. Both 0.01% and 0.03% bimatoprost significantly improved eyebrow density and diameter (P < 0.05) with non-significant superiority of the 0.03% to the 0.01% concentration.”
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zaky, M. S., Hashem, O. A., Mahfouz, S. M., & Elsaie, M. L. (2023) · Archives of Dermatological Research · doi:10.1007/s00403-023-02679-2 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Suchonwanit, P., Harnchoowong, S., Chanasumon, N., & Sriphojanart, T.
- Affiliations
- Mahidol University (TH)
- Corresponding author
- Suchonwanit, Poonkiat
- Venue
- Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-07-17
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 714-719
- ISSN
- 1473-2130 (ISSN-L)
- 1473-2165
- OpenAlex
- W2963123393
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- The Dermatological Society of Thailand
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Hair Growth and Disorders
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › melanin and skin pigmentation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatologic Treatments and Research
- Keywords
- bimatoprost, patient satisfaction, treatment safety, split-face comparison
- MeSH terms
- Bimatoprost, Administration, Topical, Adult, Dose-Response Relationship, Drug, Double-Blind Method, Eyebrows, Female, Humans, Hypotrichosis, Male, Middle Aged, Ophthalmic Solutions, Photography, Prospective Studies, Treatment Outcome, Patient Satisfaction
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