A new survey reveals the significant disconnect between dermocosmetic labeling and clinical reality. Explore more and vote in today's poll.
The expanding role of dermocosmetics in clinical practice has introduced new complexities for dermatology clinicians, particularly as the distinction between cosmetics and pharmacologic therapies becomes increasingly blurred. This Brazilian study provides timely insight into how dermatologists interpret product labeling and cosmetic claims, highlighting critical information gaps that may directly influence prescribing behavior and patient safety.1
Using a structured interview format, investigators surveyed 118 dermatologists with a 29-question instrument combining quantitative and qualitative elements. The findings underscore the centrality of cosmetic recommendations in modern dermatology: 85.6% of respondents reported prescribing dermocosmetics to more than three-quarters of their patients. The most frequently recommended categories were sunscreens, cleansers, and antiaging products, reflecting a preventive care paradigm focused on photoprotection, barrier maintenance, and mitigation of extrinsic aging.
Despite the high frequency of use, dermatologists reported substantial challenges in interpreting product labeling. Although 84.7% considered label information important for guiding recommendations, 77.1% indicated that such information is not consistently clear. Ingredients were identified as the most influential factor in decision-making (78.8%), yet they also represented the leading source of uncertainty, with 30.2% citing ingredient lists as the most difficult component to interpret.
One contributing factor is the technical complexity of ingredient nomenclature, particularly the International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients (INCI) system. Although standardized, INCI terminology does not convey critical clinical information such as ingredient concentration, bioavailability, stability, or tolerability. As a result, dermatologists are often unable to fully assess product efficacy or safety based solely on labels. This limitation is compounded by the absence of standardized definitions for commonly used terms such as “natural,” “organic,” and “hypoallergenic,” which are frequently employed in marketing but lack consistent scientific grounding.
The study also revealed gaps in the conceptual understanding of cosmetic terminology. When terms were recognized, accurate interpretation was inconsistent. For example, although all participants reported understanding “SPF 30,” only 66% could correctly define it. Similarly, although 93% were familiar with the term “serum,” fewer than half could explain its technical meaning. Another key finding is the strong influence of industry communication on prescribing behavior. Nearly all respondents (94.9%) reported relying on medical representatives for information, with additional input from scientific congresses (81.4%) and publications (73.7%). Although these channels are valuable, they may vary in scientific rigor and objectivity.
Importantly, 39% of dermatologists reported lacking access to reliable reference materials to support cosmetic recommendations. In this context, many turn to the internet (22%) or industry-provided materials (16.9%), underscoring the lack of standardized, independent educational resources. This gap may contribute to variability in clinical practice and increase the risk of suboptimal or inconsistent recommendations.
Where do you primarily source information for your dermocosmetic recommendations?
The study also explored perceptions of “natural” products, revealing considerable heterogeneity in both definition and perceived safety. Although 61.6% of respondents considered natural products as safe as conventional cosmetics, definitions varied widely, ranging from entirely plant-derived formulations to partially natural compositions. This variability reflects broader regulatory ambiguity and raises concerns about greenwashing, whereby marketing claims may not align with product composition or safety profiles. Notably, most dermatologists prioritized scientific validation over ingredient origin when assessing safety, with 52.8% identifying clinical testing as the most important criterion.
Collectively, these findings point to a critical need for improved communication and standardization in the cosmetic industry. Dermatology clinicians expressed strong demand for clearer, evidence-based information, particularly regarding ingredient composition, active concentrations, mechanisms of action, safety in special populations (eg, pregnancy), and documented efficacy. Transparent disclosure of clinical data and harmonized definitions of commonly used terms were identified as priorities to enhance clinical confidence.
Let us know your thoughts and experiences by answering our poll above and commenting on social media, or by writing to us at
Reference
1. Vendruscolo CW, Bagatin E, Leonardi GR. Information gaps and practical barriers in the recommendation of cosmetic products by dermatologists: evidence from a Brazilian study. Dermatol Rev. 2026;7(2):e70059. doi:10.1002/der2.70059
