Olistic Women drinkable multi-ingredient nutraceutical,
does it really help with Increased TrichoScan hair density in premenopausal women with telogen effluvium?
research showsGrade C. In a 106-participant double-blind trial, the day-180 increase in hair density was +27.31±2.61 versus +18.23±2.98 hairs/cm² with placebo (P<.01). This was hair counted by TrichoScan, not a patient-centered judgment that hair visibly looked fuller.
ads claimWomen's hair supplements differ in formulation, ingredients, and populations. This result must not be extended to Viviscal, Nutrafol, or the entire supplement class.
Useful facts when choosing a product
- The tested finished product was one 25-mL Olistic Women vial daily for six months.
- The primary endpoint was hairs/cm² counted by TrichoScan, not appearance or satisfaction.
- The trial was registered after primary completion.
What the research actually shows
Multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial CT-OW-02 randomized 106 diagnosed premenopausal women with telogen effluvium, 53 per group, for six months. The primary endpoint was change in hair density by TrichoScan phototrichoscopy. NCT07111312 was first posted on August 8, 2025, after primary completion on May 10, 2024, so it cannot serve as prospective registration. Detailed missing-data handling and random-sequence and allocation-concealment methods were not confirmed in the public paper. The study did not collect minor adverse events at all. General tolerability therefore cannot be assessed.
Why this is classified as C (50)
Hair-density measurement favored the product, but a surrogate endpoint, one manufacturer-only trial, and a 106-person sample give C with 50 points.
Counterpoint. The numeric increase is real within this trial, but it does not establish visible fullness, durability, or benefit of other formulations.
Rejudgment record. Cross-check applied — Positive TrichoScan hair-density result in one 106-participant manufacturer trial with retrospective registration and a small sample
| Endpoint | S | Surrogate marker - laboratory or imaging measures |
| Replication | R1 | Single confirmatory trial |
| Independence | I0 | Evidence comes only from manufacturer studies |
| Effect size | E+ | Meets the clinically important threshold |
The scoring table and the verdict agree (C).
Sub-claim grades by effect
This ingredient is marketed for several effects. A single overall grade blends strong and weak claims together, so each effect is graded separately here. The overall grade reflects the strongest disconfirming or core claim.
| Effect (sub-claim) | Grade | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Six-month increase in TrichoScan hair density with this finished product | C | The day-180 change was +27.31 versus +18.23 hairs/cm². |
| Visibly fuller hair | ? | The primary endpoint was not appearance. |
Cross-check — AI research and Codex final gate
Evidence Table
| Study | Design | Sample | Funding | Endpoint | Result | Weight |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study 1 | Multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial | 53 | Fully funded by Olistic Research Labs S.L., which supplied product and placebo and employed an author | Increase in TrichoScan hair density at day 180 | +27.31±2.61 vs +18.23±2.98 hairs/cm², P<.01; 95% CI not reported | Pivotal but retrospectively registered single manufacturer trial |
Receipt — 1 References
All 1 cited sources were verified for existence at the original page (as of 2026-08-26).
Final verification and publication gate: Codex · Verification cutoff: 2026-08-26 · Corrections: none
Cite this verdict
[Chamgap] Benefit of Olistic Women for Hair Density in Telogen Effluvium — Evidence Grade C·50. 1 cited sources checked. Source: https://chamgap.com/en/verdicts/skin-hair/olistic-women-telogen-effluvium-hair-density/ · CC BY 4.0CC BY 4.0 — free to use with attribution; do not distort grades, numbers, or verdict meaning.
What this document does and does not do
Chamgap is an information source. It reports what research has and has not confirmed; it does not tell readers what to take or buy. That decision belongs to readers and, when needed, medical or legal professionals. This verdict reflects literature available up to the search date and may change as new research appears. Nothing here is medical advice.