The citation stays after the paper is gone — five retracted papers in aesthetics
We will start with our own record. This site was citing one of them. The paper we had been quoting across several pages as Rejuran's Korean approval phase 3 trial was retracted in 2016. We found that in September 2026 and corrected every page the same day. While correcting them we looked around the same literature and found at least five retracted papers that are cited as evidence for aesthetic treatments. This is that list, and how anyone can check a citation in five minutes.
The short answer
When a paper is retracted, the pages that cited it do not change. Clinic websites, blogs, product brochures — and now AI answers — keep the numbers alive long after the source has been pulled from the record. Of the five we verified, three sit in the polynucleotide (PN) family; the other two are a hyaluronic acid skin booster study and a thread lift study. Retraction does not mean the treatment does not work. It means the sentence that leaned on that paper has lost its support.
Why we are writing this — our own case
Across several columns we had written: “Rejuran is a medical device, so human clinical trial data was mandatory for approval, and it passed a phase 3 with 72 enrolled and 70 analysed.” We put that trial's improvement rate and adverse event rate into comparison tables against other products.
In September 2026, while working on something else, we reopened the paper and saw that its PubMed publication type is ‘Retracted Publication’. There is a retraction notice: Notice of Retraction, J Korean Med Sci 2016;31(2):330.
Reading further, the original abstract itself had already stated that the primary and secondary objective efficacy measures showed no statistical significance between the two groups. The control was not a placebo but a non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid product.
The same day we added the retraction to 81 pages across 8 languages on this site and rewrote the sentences that had rested on it. This column is a by-product of that work.
The five
These are only papers whose PubMed publication type reads ‘Retracted Publication’. Anyone can verify each one by its PMID. We could not reach the retraction notice itself for items 2 to 5, which is why no reason is given for them below.
| Paper | Subject | Size | PMID |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pak CS, et al. J Korean Med Sci 2014;29(Suppl 3):S201–S209 | Rejuran's Korean approval phase 3. Crow's feet, control was non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid. Retraction notice in the same journal, 2016;31(2):330 | 72 enrolled, 70 analysed | 25473210 |
| Choi SY, et al. J Cosmet Dermatol 2024;24(1):e16576 | Split-face trial comparing a new PCL filler with Rejuran on crow's feet | 218 | 39313949 |
| Cavallini M, et al. J Cosmet Dermatol 2022;21(2):615–624 | A PN preparation for midface rejuvenation — single-arm, no control | 40 | 34791770 |
| Scarano A, et al. J Cosmet Dermatol 2021;20(7):2296–2304 | Low molecular weight hyaluronic acid with amino acids injected intradermally, with histology | 20 | 33090687 |
| Sahan A, et al. J Cosmet Dermatol 2023;22(6):1863–1869 | Brow thread lift — retrospective results of a new technique | 50 | 36762403 |
What stands out is that the PN family appears in three of the five. Item 1 is Rejuran's own approval trial, item 3 is a single-arm observation of a different PN preparation, and item 2 is a comparison that used Rejuran as the control. Several supports under PN evidence thinned at once.
What retraction does and does not mean
What it means — the journal has withdrawn the paper from the formal record. Reasons vary: data errors, duplicate publication, authorship problems, ethics review. Journals differ in how much they state in the notice. In every case, the numbers in that paper are no longer appropriate to cite as evidence.
What it does not mean — it is not a verdict that the treatment does not work. Retraction is a judgment about the paper, not the product. Rejuran remains an approved medical device in Korea, and the PN literature includes studies that have not been retracted. Those studies are small, follow-up is short, and the systematic reviews that include them describe the quality of the included work as low to moderate.
The accurate sentence is this: not “there is no evidence”, but “the evidence that was being cited is gone, and what remains was thin to begin with”.
Why the citations survive
Journals retract. Nobody tells the people who cited the paper — clinic websites, product sheets, blogs, lecture slides. So numbers withdrawn in 2016 are still working in promotional material in 2026.
One layer has been added to that: AI answers. Chatbots build replies from sentences found on the web. When a figure is repeated across many clinic pages, nothing in that process checks whether the source of the figure has been retracted. The more often a bad citation is repeated, the more it looks like settled fact.
How to check it yourself — five minutes
It is not difficult. If a clinic or a product sheet cites a study, you can check it like this.
- Find the citation. Usually “Journal year;volume(issue):pages”, or an author name and year. If there is no citation at all, that is also an answer — there is nothing to check.
- Search the title or author at pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. It is free and needs no account.
- Look at the banner above the title. A retracted paper carries “This article has been retracted” and the publication type includes Retracted Publication, with a link to the retraction notice.
One more thing worth checking: what the control group was. If the comparator was another product rather than a placebo, the trial showed “not worse than that product”, not “this works”. That distinction is the one most often lost between the trial and the advertisement.
What this changes in consultation
We had been using “which side has thicker data” as one axis when choosing between products. This finding removed one of those axes, because the phase 3 we relied on to say Rejuran had thicker data is gone.
So what we now say is this: whether PN, hADM or liquid PCL, no trial has compared two of these families head to head in the same people under the same conditions. The choice is not about which is better but about which conditions apply — thinning skin or lost volume, whether reversibility matters, whether a multi-session course is acceptable.
And wherever you are consulting, we suggest asking once: “which paper does that number come from?” If you get an answer, you can run the five-minute check above. If you do not, that is information too.
Frequently asked
Does this mean I should not have Rejuran?
No. Retraction is a judgment about the paper, not the product, and Rejuran remains an approved medical device in Korea. What changed is that the sentence “it passed an approval phase 3” can no longer be supported by that paper. Non-retracted PN studies exist, but they are small with short follow-up.
Could a clinic simply not know a paper was retracted?
Easily. When a journal retracts a paper, nobody notifies the websites and materials that cited it. We cited it unknowingly for months for exactly that reason, which is why this column includes the checking method.
Why are three of the five polynucleotide papers?
We do not know. This is a list of retracted papers, not an analysis of cause. What is factual is that several supports under PN evidence — the approval trial, an observational study of another PN preparation, and a comparison using Rejuran as control — thinned at the same time.
Is this list complete?
No. Five is what we verified. This was not an exhaustive search of retractions in aesthetic medicine; it came from checking the papers this site cited and the literature immediately around them. There are very likely more.
Why does a non-placebo control matter?
If the comparator is another product, the trial demonstrates “not inferior to that product” rather than “effective”. It is a non-inferiority design. That distinction usually disappears by the time it reaches advertising copy.
Who wrote this
Lee Chi-Hak, Director, Miso Clinic Daegu
4F Bombom Building, 125 Dongdeok-ro, Jung-gu, Daegu, Korea (Exit 1, Kyungpook National University Hospital Station)
+82-53-428-2700 · www.clinicmiso.co.kr
References
- Pak CS, et al. A phase III, randomized, double-blind, matched-pairs, active-controlled clinical trial … polynucleotide filler and hyaluronic acid filler in the correction of crow's feet. J Korean Med Sci. 2014;29(Suppl 3):S201-S209. PMID 25473210 — Retracted Publication
- Notice of Retraction: Pak CS, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2016;31(2):330. PMID 26839493
- Choi SY, et al. A randomized, participant- and evaluator-blinded, matched-pair, prospective study comparing polycaprolactone and polynucleotide fillers in the correction of crow's feet. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2024;24(1):e16576. PMID 39313949 — Retracted Publication
- Cavallini M, et al. PN-HPT in facial middle third rejuvenation. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21(2):615-624. PMID 34791770 — Retracted Publication
- Scarano A, et al. The role of hyaluronic acid and amino acid against the aging of the human skin. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2021;20(7):2296-2304. PMID 33090687 — Retracted Publication
- Sahan A, et al. Is it possible to obtain long-lasting results with thread lift in the brow region? J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22(6):1863-1869. PMID 36762403 — Retracted Publication
- Lee YJ, et al. Comparison of the effects of polynucleotide and hyaluronic acid fillers on periocular rejuvenation. J Dermatolog Treat. 2022;33(1):254-260. PMID 32248707 (not retracted — 27 subjects, split face; no significant difference from control on the main aesthetic scales)
- Rho NK, et al. Expert Perspectives: Evidence-Based Applications of Polynucleotides in Aesthetic Medicine and Dermatology. Clin Cosmet Investig Dermatol. 2026;19:557226. PMID 41939258 (expert opinion — some authors are employed by the manufacturer; the text itself states the evidence base remains limited)
- Related — Rejuran product page, CellREDM and Re2O vs Rejuran, GOURI and Rejuran.
What we could not verify
- The stated reason for retraction in items 2 to 5 — we could not reach the notices themselves. We verified only the PubMed publication type.
- An exhaustive list of retractions in aesthetic medicine — this is not a systematic search.
- How widely the retracted papers are still cited in Korean clinic material.
- The class, intended use and approval date in the original Korean approval document for Rejuran.
This is general medical information and does not replace consultation. It is not intended to disparage any product or clinic; the retraction status of every paper cited here is public information anyone can verify on PubMed. Indications and methods depend on individual skin condition and should be decided after an in-person consultation.
← Clinical columns · Reference library · Miso Clinic Daegu
한국어 · English