Cited by 7Hair Growth and Disordersmelanin and skin pigmentationDermatologic Treatments and Research

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

Suchonwanit, Poonkiat, Harnchoowong, Sarawin, Chanasumon, Nongsak, Sriphojanart, Tueboon·2020·Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology

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

Crossref · 10.1111/jocd.13079

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

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