N/A N=40 Comparative Study to Evaluate the Cosmetic Appearance of Two Brands (Coopervision (CVI) vs. Competitor) of Color Soft Contact Lenses.
Myopia
Primary: Cosmetic Appearance Preference — 8; 9; 4; 5 participants
Clinical Trial Search
Completed trials with posted results — search by concept, filter by the parameters that matter at the bedside.
Phase 4 N=64 Study to Evaluate Subject Satisfaction With Facial Appearance and Impact of Combined Facial Treatment
Facial Rhytides · Skin Folds · Loss of Volume and Skin Quality
Primary: Change From Baseline in the Rasch-transformed Score of the FACE-Q Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Scale. — 46.6 units on a scale — p=<0.0001
Phase 4 N=59 A Study to Evaluate Participant Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Overall and the Aesthetic and Psychosocial Impact of Combined Facial Treatment
Facial Rhytides, Skin Folds, Loss of Volume and Skin Quality
Primary: Change From Baseline in Rasch-transformed Score of FACE-Q Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Overall Scale to End of Study — 40.9; 37.8; 21.5; 32.9 score on a scale…
N/A N=100 Assessment of the Cosmetic Benefit of a Skin Cream in Healthy Females With Mild to Advanced Photo-damaged Facial Skin Who Have Undergone a Glycolic Acid Facial Peel Procedure
Skin Care
Primary: Number of Participants Reporting Product Tolerability Based on Evaluator Global Assessment Scores — 47; 44; 0; 0 Participants
N/A N=198 Evaluation of the Cosmetic Performance of AIR OPTIX® COLORS
Cosmetic Appearance
Primary: Overall Preference — 49.1; 24.6 Percentage of participants
N/A N=82 Evaluation of the Cosmetic Benefit of a Skin Cream in Healthy Females With Mild to Advanced Photo-damaged Facial Skin Who Have Undergone a Glycolic Acid Facial Peel Procedure
Skin Care
Primary: Number of Participants With Evaluator (Dermatologist) Global Assessment (EGA) Score for Well Tolerance of Product 14 Days Post-Procedure — 36; 38 Participants — p=0.3334
Phase 4 N=101 Prospective Evaluation of Facial Cosmetic Procedures
Cosmetic Techniques
Primary: Patient Satisfaction With Validated FACE-Q Aesthetics Survey — 28.0; 24.0; 36.0; 36.0 score on a scale
N/A N=53 Clinical Evaluation of Two Cosmetic Contact Lenses
Visual Acuity
Primary: Distance Monocular logMAR Visual Acuity — -0.159; -0.157 logMAR
N/A N=29 Study to Assess the Cosmetic Changes in the Facial Skin After Use of a Topical Retinoid Product in Participants With Moderate to Severe Photodamage
Skin Care
Primary: Change From Baseline in Overall Photodamage Score — 5.6; -0.8 score on a scale — p=<0.001
N/A N=113 To Investigate the Cutaneous and Ocular Local Tolerance of Two Cosmetic Facial Cleanser in Healthy Females With Sensitive Skin
Skin Care
Primary: Frequency of Combined Dermatologist Score — 1; 1; 51; 55 Participants
N/A N=36 To Assess the Photosensitisation and Photoallergy Potential of a Cosmetic Facial Product in Healthy Participants
Skin Care
Primary: Combined Skin Irritation (Dermal Response) and Superficial Irritation (Other Effects) Scores at Induction Phase at Day 2 — 0; 0 Score on scale
Phase 4 N=30 Effect of a Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation (TENS) Device on Overall Facial Appearance
Ageing
Primary: Evaluate Overall Facial Improvement Assessed Live by the Investigator and Subjects Using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at 12 Weeks Compared to Baseline…
N/A N=90 A Clinical Study to Investigate the Dermal and Ocular Tolerance of a Developmental Cosmetic Facial Serum Formulation in Healthy Females With Sensitive Skin
Skin Care
Primary: Number of Participants With a Unit Change of Greater Than (>) 1 in Signs and Symptoms of Cutaneous Irritation Total Scores From Baseline to 21 Days of Product Use — 3; 0…
N/A N=15 Topical Centella Asiatica and the Cosmetic Appearance of Stretch Marks
Stretch Marks · Striae Distensae · Cosmetic Appearance of Stretch Marks
Primary: Cosmetic Outcome- Fraction Improving by at Least 1 Point Increase in Overall Appearance of Stretch Marks — 3; 5 Participants
N/A N=25 Objective Vision Evaluation of Two Cosmetic Contact Lenses
Visual Acuity
Primary: Distance Binocular Visual Acuity (logMAR) — -0.15; -0.18; 0.00; -0.04 logMAR
N/A N=35 Evaluation of Visual Performance of Two Types of Cosmetic Contact Lenses
Visual Acuity
Primary: Distance Monocular Visual Acuity (logMAR) — -0.016; -0.001; -0.171; -0.151 logMAR
N/A N=48 To Assess the Mildness of a Cosmetic Cleanser in Healthy Participants Using the Forearm-Controlled Application Technique (FCAT)
Skin Care
Primary: Change From Baseline in Visual Assessment of Dryness at Day 5 — 0.48; 0.91; 0.56; 0.63 Score on a scale — p=0.1769
Phase 2 N=30 Botulinum Toxin to Improve Cosmesis of Primary Cleft Lip Repair
Cleft Lip · Scarring · Cleft Palate
Primary: Hypertrophic Scarring (HTS) as Assessed by Score on the Manchester Scar Scale (MSS) Rated by Blinded Plastic Surgeons — 7; 9 score on a scale
N/A N=280 To Evaluate Skin Irritation and Skin Sensitisation of Developmental Cosmetic Facial Products
Skin Care
Primary: Percentage of Participants With Potential Sensitisation Reactions as Assessed by Dermatologist on Day 40 — 2; 1; 1; 0 Number of participants
N/A N=141 Study Comparing Appearance and Function of Three Different Dental Implant Designs When Placed in Front Region of Upper Jaw
Jaw, Edentulous, Partially
Primary: Buccal Soft Tissue (Gum) Changes, Measured as Mid-buccal Gingival Zenith (GZ) Scores. — 0.08; -0.10; 0.00 Millimeter
N/A N=15 Evaluation of the Evoke Radiofrequency Device for Improvement of Skin Appearance
Skin Laxity
Primary: Percentage of Participants With Baseline and 6 Month Face Photographs Correctly Identified by Two Blind Evaluators — 7 Participants
Phase 3 N=25 Assess Aesthetic Improvement With QM1114-DP in Subjects With Moderate to Severe Lateral Canthal Lines and Glabellar Lines
Glabellar Frown Lines · Canthal Lines
Primary: Responders Rate Using the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at Maximum Frown (Glabellar Lines) — 100 percentage of participants
N/A N=20 A Study to Examine the Effects of Cosmeceutical Therapy in Subjects Undergoing Full Facial Rejuvenation
Facial Rejuvenation With Neurotoxins and/or Hyaluronic Acid Fillers
Primary: C-GAIS by the PI or Designee — 1.22; 2.13; 1.75; 2.75 units on a scale
N/A N=24 Negative Pressure Wound Therapy-PICO: Cosmesis in Repeat C-Sections
Hypertrophic Skin Condition of Anterior Abdomen
Primary: Subjective Cosmetic Result — 13; 26.5 units on a scale
N/A N=72 Esthetics of Dental Composite and Adhesive System
Cavities of Teeth
Primary: Patient Satisfaction of the Restoration's Appearance (Esthetics) Using the Visual Analog Scale — 85; 79 units on a scale
Phase 2 N=20 Combination Facial Aesthetic Treatment in Millennials
Dermatological Non-Disease
Primary: FACE-Q Satisfaction With Facial Appearance Overall Scale — 42.35; 59.42 score on a scale
Phase 4 N=194 A Study to Assess the Effects of an Oral Dietary Supplement on Overall Facial Appearance Among Healthy Adult Women With Existing Skin Damage From Sun Exposure
Photodamaged Skin
Primary: Change From Baseline in Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) of Participant's Overall Facial Appearance at Week 24 — 6.04; 5.81; 0.6; 0.7 units on scale — p=0.358
N/A N=132 A Study to Evaluate of Cosmetic Benefit of a Moisturising Cream in People With Blemish Prone Skin
Skin Care
Primary: Change From Baseline in Corneometer Values at 8 Hours on Day 1 — 6.14; 2.63; 3.60 Arbitrary Corneometer unit — p=0.0128
N/A N=72 Proof of Concept Anti-ageing Clinical Study in Healthy Subjects
Skin Aging
Primary: Change From Baseline in Ra (a dermaTOP Parameter), of Test Product Treated Versus (vs.) Untreated Side at Day 29 — -1.90; -0.12 Micro meter (µm) — p=0.0638
N/A N=86 Safety and Effectiveness Clinical Evaluation of Injectable Medical Devices Viscol
Aesthetic Dermatology
Primary: Performance at 1 Month Investigator Overall VISCOL Range — 77 Participants — p=<0.0001