Cited by 115Probiotics and Fermented FoodsDermatology and Skin DiseasesContact Dermatitis and Allergies

Randomised double-blind placebo-controlled study of the effect of Lactobacillus paracasei NCC 2461 on skin reactivity

Open access
Gueniche, A., Philippe, D., Bastien, P., Reuteler, G., Blum, S., Castiel-Higounenc, I., Breton, L., Benyacoub, J.·2014·Beneficial Microbes

Abstract

In recent decades, the prevalence of subjects with reactive skin has considerably increased in industrialised countries. 50% of women and 30% of men report cutaneous discomfort classified under reactive/sensitive skin. Several topical approaches have been proposed, in particular through improvement of galenic forms or protection of epidermal surface. We propose to act differently, deeply from inside the body via an innovative nutritional approach. To this purpose, Lactobacillus paracasei NCC 2461 (ST11) was selected because of its specific beneficial skin properties discovered in in vitro studies, i.e. diminution of neurogenic inflammation and promotion of the recovery of skin barrier function. We designed a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical study with a two-month supplementation in two female treatment groups (n=32 per group). A capsaicin test was performed to monitor the time course of skin sensitivity. Moreover, transepidermal water loss was assessed to analyse the rate of skin barrier function recovery; dryness of the leg and roughness of the cheeks was investigated by a dermatologist as well as by self-assessment. The results of the present clinical trial show that oral supplementation with the probiotic decreases skin sensitivity and increases the rate of barrier function recovery. Thus, the data provide evidence that daily intake of ST11 could improve reactive skin condition.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3920/bm2013.0001

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial, lactobacillus paracasei NCC 2461 decreased skin sensitivity through inhibition of release of neuromediators involved in sensitivity reaction, and improved skin barrier function in leg and cheek skin.

    “A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial showed that lactobacillus paracasei NCC 2461 decreased skin sensitivity through inhibition of the release of the neuromediators involved in sensitivity reaction, and improved skin barrier function in leg and cheek skin [142].”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Choi, M.Q., Brown, B.E., Crumrine, D., Chang, S., Man, M.Q., Elias, P.M. and Feingold, K.R., 2005. Mechanisms by which psychological stress alters cutaneous integrity. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 124: 587-595.
  2. Ohta, M., Hikima, R. and Ogawa, T., 2000. Physiological characteristics of sensitive skin classified by stinging test. Journal of Japanese Cosmetic Science Society 23: 163-167.
  3. Thurin, J.T. and Baumann, N. (eds.), 2003. Stress, pathologie et immunité. Flammarion, Paris, France.
  4. Tronnier, H., 1981. Hydration of the skin. Journal of the Society of Cosmetic Chemists 32: 175-192.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gueniche, A., Philippe, D., Bastien, P., Reuteler, G., Blum, S., Castiel-Higounenc, I., Breton, L., & Benyacoub, J.
Affiliations
  • L’Oréal Research and Innovation, 1 avenue Eugène shueller, 93 601 Aulnay sous Bois, France
  • Nestlé (Switzerland) (CH)
  • L'Oréal (France) (FR)
Venue
Beneficial Microbes
Published
2014-06-01
Volume
5
Issue
2
Pages
137-145
ISSN
  • 1876-2883 (ISSN-L)
  • 1876-2891
OpenAlex
W2104922674
Cited by
114
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1
FWCI
4.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Beneficial Microbes (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Probiotics and Fermented Foods
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Contact Dermatitis and Allergies
Keywords
probiotics, sensitive skin, skin barrier function, transepidermal water loss, oral supplementation, neurogenic inflammation, dry skin, skin roughness
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Capsaicin, Dehydration, Dermatitis, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Lactobacillus, Placebos, Skin Diseases, Skin Physiological Phenomena, Treatment Outcome, Probiotics

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