背景:再生美学声称通过干细胞和外泌体疗法等先进的生物干预措施来增强美容效果,多脱氧核糖核苷酸(PDRN),光生物调节,生物活性肽和治疗细胞衰老还缺乏实质性的科学和监管验证。
目的:评估非手术美学中再生医学技术的科学和临床基础,并评估再生美学作为医学专业的合法性。
方法:根据PRISMA指南进行了系统评价,搜索数据库,包括PubMed,Scopus,和WebofScience在过去十年中发表的研究。我们纳入了19项研究,包括14项随机对照试验(RCT)和5项前瞻性研究,专注于据称在美学应用中使用再生医学原理的干预措施。
结果:该综述强调了支持再生美学的有效性和安全性的分子和临床证据中普遍存在的差距。尽管纳入的随机对照试验设计和前瞻性研究,仍然缺乏一致性,高质量的证据证明这些干预措施的有效性。报告不充分等问题,分子机制不清楚,缺乏长期安全性数据是常见的.
结论:再生美学领域缺乏必要的科学严谨性和法规遵从性,无法被认为是合法的医学专业。这篇综述强调了在这些技术被推荐用于临床之前,需要严格的科学验证和监管监督,以确保患者的安全和治疗效果。
方法:本期刊要求作者为每篇文章分配一定程度的证据。对于这些循证医学评级的完整描述,请参阅目录或在线作者说明www。springer.com/00266.
BACKGROUND: Regenerative aesthetics claims to enhance cosmetic outcomes through advanced biological interventions like Stem cell and Exosome therapy,
Polydeoxyribonucleotide (PDRN), Photobiomodulation, bioactive peptides and treatment for cellular senescence yet lacks substantial scientific and regulatory validation.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the scientific and clinical foundations of regenerative medicine techniques in non-surgical aesthetics and assess the legitimacy of regenerative aesthetics as a medical specialty.
METHODS: A systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, searching databases including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies published in the last ten years. We included 19 studies, comprising 14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 5 prospective studies, focusing on interventions that purportedly use regenerative medicine principles in aesthetic applications.
RESULTS: The review highlights a prevalent gap in molecular and clinical evidence supporting the efficacy and safety of regenerative aesthetics. Despite the robust design of the included RCTs and prospective studies, there remains a significant lack of consistent, high-quality evidence proving the effectiveness of these interventions. Issues such as inadequate reporting, unclear molecular mechanisms, and absence of long-term safety data were common.
CONCLUSIONS: The field of regenerative aesthetics lacks the necessary scientific rigour and regulatory compliance to be recognized as a legitimate medical specialty. This review underscores the need for stringent scientific validation and regulatory oversight to ensure patient safety and treatment efficacy before these techniques can be recommended for clinical use.
METHODS: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .