Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Compound monograph · evidence extract

GHRP-6 in cutaneous wound healing and tissue repair — evidence extract

The Institute's graded assessment of GHRP-6 for cutaneous wound healing and tissue repair, with the contributing trials and the domain-by-domain certainty reasoning.

Document identifier
CEI-MN-027/EV-WOUND-HEALING
Series
Evidence extract
Version
4.0
Published
21 Nov 2024
Last reviewed
21 Sep 2025
Next review
21 Sep 2027
Identifier
10.71829/cei.mono.27
Certainty
Very low
Cycle
2024 Q4

§1Evidence extract: Cutaneous wound healing and tissue repair

§1.1Question and anchor outcome

Population
Restoration of epithelial and dermal integrity following injury, assessed by closure rate, area reduction and scar quality.
Intervention
GHRP-6, subcutaneous or intravenous
Comparator
As used in each contributing trial; reported per trial rather than pooled across comparator types
Anchor outcome
Time to complete closure

Additional outcomes the Institute extracts for this indication: Percentage area reduction; Scar assessment scale; Infection rate.

§1.2Contributing trials

No trial has been identified for GHRP-6 in cutaneous wound healing and tissue repair. The rating below reflects that absence.

§1.3Certainty assessment

Certainty assessment by domainDowngrading decision recorded for each certainty domain.Certainty domainNo concernSeriousVery seriousEffect on ratingRisk of biasdowngrade one levelInconsistencyno downgradeIndirectnessdowngrade one levelImprecisionno downgradePublication biasdowngrade one levelTotal downgrading: 3 levelsVery low certainty
Figure 2. Domain-by-domain certainty assessment for GHRP-6 in cutaneous wound healing and tissue repair. The starting rating for a body of randomised evidence is high; each serious concern reduces it by one level and each very serious concern by two.

Table 2. Reasoning recorded against each certainty domain.

DomainRatingReasoning
Risk of biasSeriousDifferential attrition exceeded the pre-specified threshold in one arm.
InconsistencyNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
IndirectnessSeriousAn outcome that would answer the question was not measured in any contributing trial.
ImprecisionNo concernNo serious concern identified in this domain.
Publication biasSeriousRegistered trials without posted results were identified for this question.
Overall rating: Very low certainty. The Institute has very little confidence in the effect estimate. The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate. In this series a very low rating most often reflects an absence of controlled human evidence rather than conflicting evidence.

§1.4What this extract does not establish

References cited on this page

References are numbered in order of first citation in this document. Each superscript in the text links to its entry below.

  1. Raun K, Hansen BS, Johansen NL, Thøgersen H, Madsen K, Ankersen M, Andersen PH. Ipamorelin, the first selective growth hormone secretagogue. European Journal of Endocrinology 1998;139(5):552–561. doi:10.1530/eje.0.1390552 · PMID 9849822
  2. Thevis M, Thomas A, Schänzer W. Detecting peptidic drugs, drug candidates and analogs in sports doping: current status and future directions. Expert Review of Proteomics 2019;11(6):663–673. doi:10.1586/14789450.2014.965158
  3. Manning MC, Chou DK, Murphy BM, Payne RW, Katayama DS. Stability of protein pharmaceuticals: an update. Pharmaceutical Research 2010;27(4):544–575. doi:10.1007/s11095-009-0045-6 · PMID 20143256

Identifiers are reproduced only where the Institute holds them. Where a digital object identifier or PubMed identifier is not shown, the Institute has recorded the journal and year and has not constructed an identifier.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.