7.65%
improvement in net elasticity
1 hour
Cutometer R5, n=32; p=0.015.
SeneGenceReview6-Week Independent Anti-Aging Study
NeoTight® Rejuvenating Anti-Wrinkle Serum
One application. A measurable gain in elasticity.
Within one hour, independent instrumental testing measured a significant improvement in net elasticity, while expert grading separately documented firmer-looking skin. By Week 6, expert line grades and participant feedback supported improved-looking lines and more youthful-looking skin.
33 completed1-hour + 6-week resultsInstrument + expert gradingTested as SGF20055-00
24.53%
improvement in crow’s-feet appearance
Week 6
Expert-graded mean change, n=31; no p-value reported.
96.88%
said the product hydrated skin well
Week 6
Participant perception, n=32.
SeneGenceReviewClinical Results
Immediate + progressive performance
A rapid elasticity result, followed by visible and perceived improvement.
Measured after one application
Cutometer R5 net elasticity improved 7.65% one hour after application (n=32; p=0.015). In a separate expert assessment, firmer-looking skin improved 12.05% at the same visit (n=31; descriptive mean change).
Crow’s-feet appearance24.53%
Week 6 expert-graded mean improvement, n=31; no p-value reported.
Upper-lip line appearance13.64%
Week 6 expert-graded mean improvement, n=31; no p-value reported.
Nasolabial-fold appearance7.14%
Week 6 expert-graded mean improvement, n=31; no p-value reported.
87.50%said overall skin appearance improved.
84.38%said fine lines and wrinkles looked reduced.
78.13%saw reduced crow’s-feet appearance.
71.88%noticed a firmer-looking, lifted appearance.
Consumer perception
Week 6 questionnaire results are self-reported agreement among 32 respondents and are shown separately from instrument and expert assessments.
SeneGenceReviewClinical Results
Technical study record
A signed final source supports a precise one-hour claim and a complementary six-week appearance story.
Independent laboratoryValidated Claim Support, LLC
Study / reportCS201033 / RE201033.V02
Tested articleRejuvenating Anti-Wrinkle Serum Formula SGF20055-00
Design6-week single-arm baseline comparison
Population34 enrolled; 33 completed; ages 48-69
Use2-3 pumps, twice daily
EvidenceCutometer, Visioscan, expert grading, photography, questionnaire
Source date13 November 2020
Instrumental context
| Assessment | Baseline | Follow-up | Source-reported mean % improvement | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cutometer R5 net elasticity | 0.5023 | 0.5407 at 1 hour | +7.65% | 0.015 |
| Cutometer R0 firmness | 0.2966 | 0.3326 at 1 hour | -12.12% (unfavorable) | 0.011 |
| Visioscan crow’s-feet SEw | 185.89 | 166.23 at Week 6 | -10.57% | 0.278 |
| Visioscan nasolabial-fold SEw | 206.78 | 174.54 at Week 6 | -15.59% | 0.156 |
For R5, increase indicates improvement; for R0 and SEw, decrease indicates improvement. The statistically significant R5 net-elasticity response at 1 hour is the primary instrumental result; additional endpoints are included for complete study context.
Study application
Expert-graded appearance and participant-perception results are presented separately from the instrument findings. Results apply to Rejuvenating Anti-Wrinkle Serum Formula SGF20055-00 under the reported six-week study design.
SeneGenceReviewTechnical Evidence
Independent laboratory evidence
Original source pages follow.
View the complete source record.
Selected original VCS pages follow, preserving the cover, study design, selected aggregate results, conclusion, authorization, and Quality Assurance evidence while excluding participant-level listings.
The complete PDF pairs this consumer summary with the selected independent laboratory source pages.
Open full PDF + laboratory sourceLaboratoryValidated Claim Support, LLC
Study / reportCS201033 / RE201033.V02
Source date13 November 2020
AuthenticationInvestigator authorization + independent QA/QC
Source authentication
The final report includes dated study authorization and a separate independent QA/QC certification completed in November 2020.
Source note
The 1-hour timing shown in the summary follows the study schedule and Cutometer results table. Participant-level Cutometer rows were removed from the appended result page; aggregate Average and Statistical Analysis rows are unchanged.
Independent laboratory source pages are included in the complete PDF. Participant-identifying information has been removed where indicated; aggregate findings are unchanged.