Tier 1 — highest

Effects of Oral Collagen for Skin Anti-Aging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Szu-Yu Pu, Ya-Li Huang, Chi-Ming Pu, Yi-No Kang, Khanh Dinh Hoang, Kee-Hsin Chen, Chiehfeng Chen
Nutrients 2023 15(9):2080

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 37432180
PubMed Central
PMC10180699
DOI
10.3390/nu15092080
Funding
This research was funded by Taipei Municipal Wanfang Hospital (managed by Taipei Medical University), grant number 111TMU-WFH-06.
Competing interests
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Study snapshot

DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
ModelHealthy adults aged ≥18 years pooled across 26 included RCTs
Sample26 RCTs, 1,721 total participants
InterventionOral hydrolysed collagen (HC) supplementation vs placebo; pooled trials sourced collagen from fish, bovine, chicken, porcine, or unspecified origin
Duration2 to 16 weeks across pooled trials
EndpointsSkin hydration (corneometry); Skin elasticity (cutometry)

What the study showed, in plain terms

This 2023 systematic review pooled 26 randomized collagen skin trials involving 1,721 participants. Pooled estimates favoured oral collagen for skin hydration and elasticity, but newer 2025–2026 syntheses reach more cautious conclusions when trial quality, industry funding and influential studies are examined.

Subgroup estimates differed by collagen source and treatment duration for some hydration analyses. Those source subgroups were not head-to-head randomized comparisons of marine, bovine, porcine and chicken collagen, so they should not be interpreted as proof that fish or marine collagen is clinically superior. The chicken subgroup relied on only one trial.

The review used Cochrane RoB 2.0, but later funding-sensitive and higher-quality subgroup analyses reduce confidence in treating its pooled effect as a general collagen class effect. It is best read alongside the newer conflicting syntheses.

Key findings

  • Pooled analysis of 18 studies favoured oral collagen for skin hydration (effect size 0.63, 95% CI 0.38–0.88).
  • Pooled analysis of 19 studies favoured oral collagen for skin elasticity (effect size 0.72, 95% CI 0.40–1.03).
  • Hydration subgroup estimates varied by collagen source, but these were between-study subgroup comparisons rather than randomized head-to-head source comparisons and do not establish marine or fish superiority.
  • The chicken-source hydration subgroup relied on a single small trial, making that estimate particularly unstable.
  • Longer-duration studies produced larger pooled estimates in some analyses, but duration was not randomized and may be confounded by product, population and study design.
  • For elasticity, the review reported no significant difference between collagen sources.
  • Later funding- and quality-sensitive reviews should be considered when interpreting the favourable pooled estimates.

What this study can and cannot tell us

  • Substantial heterogeneity across pooled analyses, primarily attributable to differing measurement units, collagen sources and supplementation doses across the 26 trials.
  • Several included studies had sample sizes under 40 participants, and the chicken-collagen subgroup relied on a single small trial, limiting confidence in that specific comparison.
  • Participant lifestyle habits (diet, hydration, sun exposure) were not incorporated into the analysis and may explain some of the unexplained heterogeneity.
  • As the authors note, the pooled RCTs varied considerably in duration and outcome-measurement instruments, which continues to limit direct cross-trial comparison despite the review's large combined sample.
  • Subsequent 2025 Myung/Park funding-sensitive analysis found no significant benefit in high-quality or non-industry-funded study subgroups. Updated 2026 syntheses vary by included trials and sensitivity methods; favorable pooled estimates are not definitive evidence for DoNotAge's specific product.

Related papers in the corpus

Tier 2
Oral supplementation of specific collagen peptides has beneficial effects on human skin physiology: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Ehrhardt Proksch et al. · Skin Pharmacology and Physiology · 2014
Tier 2
A collagen supplement improves skin hydration, elasticity, roughness, and density: results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, blind study
Liane Bolke et al. · Nutrients · 2019
Tier 2
An insight into the changes in skin texture and properties following dietary intervention with a nutricosmeceutical containing a blend of collagen bioactive peptides and antioxidants
Licia Genovese et al. · Skin Pharmacology and Physiology · 2017
Tier 1
Effects of Hydrolyzed Collagen Supplementation on Skin Aging: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Roseane B. de Miranda et al. · International Journal of Dermatology · 2021
Tier 1
Exploring the Impact of Hydrolyzed Collagen Oral Supplementation on Skin Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Dian Andriani Ratna Dewi et al. · Cureus · 2023
Tier 2
The Effect of Oral Collagen Peptide Supplementation on Skin Moisture and the Dermal Collagen Network: Evidence from an Ex Vivo Model and Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials
Jérome Asserin et al. · Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology · 2015

Citation network

Articles citing this research paper

10 articles

Biohack Blueprint analyses that reference this study in their evidence base.

Editorial review

Reviewed by the Biohack Blueprint research team

Last verified

Dr. Khaled Mahmoud, MBBChCritical Care Medicine, Longevity Science & Editorial Direction Dr. Amr Yasser, PhDCardiometabolic, Musculoskeletal, Gut & Bioavailability Dr. Abdulla Mostafa, PhDCellular Senescence, Neurological, Mitochondrial & Brain-Ageing Biology