Endermologie: there is a trial whose authors wrote in their conclusion that they do not believe it is effective

A 1999 trial in Plast Reconstr Surg from Bradford Royal Infirmary in England. The paper is titled 'Cellulite treatment: a myth or reality'.

52 of 69 women completed a 12-week randomised controlled trial. They were divided into three groups, and the patients acted as their own controls.

• Group 1 (double blind) — aminophylline cream to one thigh and buttock, placebo cream to the other. Twice daily.
• Group 2 (singly blind) — endermologie to one side only. Twice weekly.
• Group 3 — endermologie to both sides plus the same cream regimen as group 1.

Assessment was by the patient subjectively, by clinical examination, and by photographic assessment by the surgeon before and after. Morphologic assessment included body mass index, thigh girth at two points, and thigh fat depth by ultrasound.

Result: no statistical difference existed in measurements between legs for any of the treatment groups (paired t test, p > 0.4).

How to read it.

First, p > 0.4. It did not come close to 0.05. Not 'narrowly missed' but a long way off.

Second, it compared two legs of the same person. Age, weight, diet and activity cancel out automatically. Had there been a difference, this design would likely have caught it.

Third, fat depth was measured by ultrasound. Not a score assigned by eye. On the distinction this site keeps returning to — measuring versus looking — this is the measuring side.

Fourth, 52 completed. Failing to find a difference in a small trial can mean there was not the power to find one. But a within-person comparison is far more sensitive at the same size, and the p value is above 0.4.

Fifth, it is 1999. That is this entry's largest limit. The device used was the Endermologie ES1, and devices have changed over 27 years. This result cannot simply be carried across to what is sold now.

So it sits at 'not established'. But that badge means something slightly different here than on other pages — not nobody has measured this properly yet, but it was measured properly and no difference came out. And we have not found a trial of this quality since.

The self-assessment part of the same trial. And here we carry the authors' conclusion across as written.

The paper introduces this result as 'the best subjective assessment' — that is, the most generous of the assessments made.

• 3 of 35 aminophylline-treated legs were rated as having improved in the appearance of cellulite
• 10 of 35 endermologie-treated legs were rated so

And the authors' final sentence — the authors do not believe that either of these two therapies is effective in improving the appearance of cellulite.

Why this has its own entry.

This site marks self-reported improvement separately as an endpoint. On PRP, GHK-Cu and mesotherapy you will have seen trials where masked raters found no difference and the participants did.

Here that mismatch did not happen. There was no difference in the instrument readings, and on self-assessment it was 10 out of 35. Fewer than one in three.

And the participants knew they had received endermologie — group 2 was only singly blind, and you know when a suction roller has been on you. Knowing that, it was 10 out of 35.

When this site repeatedly writes that self-assessment is a weak endpoint, it does not mean self-assessment always comes out generous. It means it measures something different. And here even that weak endpoint did not move.

The aminophylline side, for the record. 3 of 35. Aminophylline is a xanthine like caffeine, and this site has a separate caffeine page. Read it alongside.

So this entry is 'not established' too.

One last note to close the page. This site also covers this concern on the cryolipolysis, acoustic wave therapy and collagenase pages. The contour concern page gathers those places together.