Unique ID issued by UMIN | UMIN000058547 |
---|---|
Receipt number | R000066812 |
Scientific Title | Systematic Review of the Functional Effects of GABA on Skin Elasticity |
Date of disclosure of the study information | 2025/07/24 |
Last modified on | 2025/07/22 15:07:44 |
Systematic Review of the Functional Effects of GABA on Skin Elasticity
Systematic Review of the Functional Effects of GABA on Skin Elasticity
Systematic Review of the Functional Effects of GABA on Skin Elasticity
Systematic Review of the Functional Effects of GABA on Skin Elasticity
Japan |
healthy adult men and women
Adult |
Others
NO
The objective of this study was to investigate whether oral administration of GABA enhances skin elasticity in healthy adult males and females, in comparison to a placebo
Efficacy
Skin Elasticity
Skin Hydration
Others,meta-analysis etc
18 | years-old | <= |
Not applicable |
Male and Female
Participants
The study targeted healthy adult men and women as participants. Given the absence of standardized clinical criteria to distinguish between healthy and diseased individuals based on skin elasticity, no numerical thresholds were applied to define skin health. Instead, individuals were excluded from the healthy cohort if they had received a medical diagnosis, undergone dermatological procedures beyond routine skincare, or used pharmaceutical products. Furthermore, individuals with any diagnosed medical conditions, minors, pregnant women, and lactating women were also excluded from participation.
Intervention
The intervention consisted of the oral intake of a food product containing gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). Data were collected at three time points: 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks after the start of intake. Participants were categorized into three groups based on their daily GABA intake: less than 30 mg, 30-99 mg, and 100 mg or more. Products with unclear GABA content were excluded from the analysis.
Control
The control condition was defined as the oral intake of food products that do not contain gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA). In principle, products containing GABA or other ingredients known to affect the study outcomes were excluded. However, studies involving non-intake or products containing only trace amounts of such ingredients-judged unlikely to influence the outcomes-were permitted to be included in the control group
Exclude trials that do not meet the selection criteria, such as those including individuals with diseases.
1st name | Hisashi |
Middle name | |
Last name | Takeuchi |
Association of Japan CAM
N/A
1510053
#306 Onogibiru,3-46-16 Yoyogi, Shibuya-ku, Tokyo
0364574911
info@ajcam.biz
1st name | Takeshi |
Middle name | |
Last name | Kaneko |
Japan Clinical Trial Association
N/A
1600022
5F, 4-3-17 Shinjuku, Shinjukuku, Tokyo
0364574666
info@yakujihou.org
Japan Clinical Trial Association
acqua.verde AWAJI
Profit organization
Japan Clinical Trial Association
5F, 4-3-17 Shinjuku, Shinjukuku, Tokyo
0364574666
info@yakujihou.org
NO
2025 | Year | 07 | Month | 24 | Day |
Unpublished
Preinitiation
2025 | Year | 07 | Month | 23 | Day |
2025 | Year | 07 | Month | 24 | Day |
2026 | Year | 07 | Month | 24 | Day |
Search Strategy
Database searches were conducted using PubMed, JDream III, UMIN, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Reviewers A and B collaboratively developed search queries corresponding to the research question and PICOS framework. Where applicable, thesaurus terms provided by each database were prioritized, supplemented with free-text keywords. Detailed search strategies are documented in Supplementary Form (5)-5. Additionally, a consumer affairs notification database was used to identify studies included in research reviews, based on cases where GABA was registered as a functional ingredient.
Risk of Bias Assessment
Risk of bias was evaluated across the following domains: (1) selection bias (randomization and allocation concealment), (2) performance and detection bias (blinding of participants and outcome assessors), (3) attrition bias (analysis methods and incomplete outcome data), (4) selective outcome reporting, (5) other sources of bias, (6) overall assessment, and (7) indirectness of individual studies. Each domain was rated as "High," "Unclear," or "Low" risk based on the level of concern.
Certainty of Evidence
Certainty of evidence was assessed for each outcome based on risk of bias, indirectness, imprecision, inconsistency, and other factors (e.g., publication bias). Each domain was rated as "Not serious," "Serious," or "Very serious." Overall certainty was graded into four levels: High (A), Moderate (B), Low (C), and Very Low (D).
2025 | Year | 07 | Month | 22 | Day |
2025 | Year | 07 | Month | 22 | Day |
Value
https://center6.umin.ac.jp/cgi-open-bin/ctr_e/ctr_view.cgi?recptno=R000066812