CIT Pen Rating from Providers: 4.5 out of 5
CIT Pen Rating from Patients: 4.2 out of 5

Want to see how MBC reviews are calculated? Click here.

Review Summary

The CIT Pen by Herbal Skin Solutions is an automated microneedling device designed for collagen induction therapy, with treatment options ranging from traditional microneedling to more superficial nano-channeling.

Here’s the key insight:

The strongest argument for the CIT Pen isn’t novelty. It’s versatility.

Providers repeatedly praised the device for being easy to use, offering multiple treatment-tip options, and fitting into protocols addressing texture, tone, fine lines, scarring, and general skin rejuvenation. Several providers also reported using the device for years and continuing to recommend it.

Patient sentiment was similarly favorable, with users describing improvements in skin appearance and satisfaction with their results.

There is, however, an important limitation to the dataset: there is very little genuinely negative feedback. Much of the available commentary is highly enthusiastic, and several comments appear promotional rather than detailed independent reviews. That makes the overall sentiment encouraging, but the strength of the ratings should be interpreted with some caution.

Provider Praise 

(Industry sentiment from Social Media, Facebook, Instagram & Forums)

Provider sentiment toward the CIT Pen was overwhelmingly positive.

Providers repeatedly noted:

• ease of use
• multiple treatment-tip options
• nano-channeling and traditional microneedling capabilities
• positive experiences with manufacturer support
• ability to incorporate the device into different skin-treatment protocols
• continued satisfaction after years of use

One provider reported using the CIT Pen for four years and continuing to love and recommend it. Another specifically praised Herbal Skin Solutions for its ongoing support.

Providers also liked the cartridge design. One commenter specifically called out the scalloped edges of the CIT cartridges, while others appreciated the ability to select gentler nano-channeling tips when a more superficial treatment was appropriate.

Clinically, the most consistent provider discussion centered on using the CIT Pen to support collagen induction and address concerns such as uneven texture, fine lines, acne scarring, and general skin quality.

The ability to adjust the treatment approach depending on the patient’s needs appears to be one of the device’s more practical advantages.

Provider Complaints 

(Industry sentiment from Social Media, Facebook, Instagram & Forums)

There were very few direct provider complaints in the submitted dataset.

The clearest criticism involved the cost of treatment tips.

One provider specifically praised the CIT nano tips but said they wished they were less expensive. That is particularly relevant for practices because recurring consumable costs can affect treatment margins even when providers are happy with the device itself.

Beyond cost, there was little substantive criticism around reliability, usability, or manufacturer support.

That sounds impressive, but the lack of criticism should not automatically be interpreted as proof that the device has no meaningful drawbacks.

A significant portion of the provider commentary is promotional or comes from practices actively offering the treatment. Claims describing CIT as a “gold standard,” “transformative,” or capable of addressing a broad range of skin concerns should therefore be viewed as provider sentiment rather than independent evidence of clinical superiority.

Patient Reviews

(Industry sentiment from Social Media, Facebook, Instagram, Reddit & Forums)

Patient commentary was scored independently from provider sentiment.

Patient Reviews: 4.2 out of 5 stars

What Patients Are Saying

Patient sentiment was highly favorable.

Patients commonly expressed satisfaction with the device and their treatment results, including comments around:

• improved overall skin appearance
• perceived improvement in signs of aging
• satisfaction with treatment results
• noticeable differences in device quality compared with other options
• continued satisfaction with the device over time
• quick and manageable treatment experiences

One patient reported still loving the pen a year later, while another who had tried other devices said the difference in quality was noticeable.

The strongest patient comments suggest that the CIT Pen can generate meaningful loyalty when users are satisfied with the treatment experience.

However, the patient dataset needs context.

Several comments classified as patient reviews are expressions of excitement such as wanting to try the treatment or anticipating future results rather than first-person reports from someone who has completed treatment. Other comments make broad efficacy claims without describing an individual treatment experience.

Because of that, the volume of positive comments is stronger than the volume of detailed patient outcome evidence.

The most concrete negative theme was again cost. One patient liked the CIT nano tips but wished they were cheaper. There was otherwise very little detailed negative patient commentary in the submitted data.

Cost Breakdown

The submitted dataset does not contain verified manufacturer pricing for CIT Pen equipment acquisition.

The dataset also does not provide enough consistent patient treatment pricing to establish a reliable average cost per CIT Pen treatment.

The clearest cost-related feedback concerns recurring treatment tips, with both provider and patient commentary describing the nano tips positively while wishing they were less expensive. No verified cartridge or tip pricing was included in the submitted data.

For practices evaluating the device, acquisition price alone would therefore not tell the complete story. Expected treatment volume, cartridge and tip costs, treatment pricing, frequency of repeat treatments, and manufacturer support should all be considered when evaluating potential return on investment.

Final Verdict

The CIT Pen earns strong sentiment from both providers and patients, with ease of use, treatment versatility, and long-term provider satisfaction standing out most clearly.

The ability to offer different treatment approaches—from gentler nano-channeling to collagen induction protocols—may make the device particularly useful for practices treating patients with varying goals and tolerances for downtime.

The biggest caveat isn’t a flood of negative reviews.

It’s the lack of them.

Much of the submitted sentiment is extremely positive, and a meaningful portion is promotional or doesn’t represent a detailed first-person treatment experience. That means the device’s 4.5 provider and 4.2 patient ratings should be read as strong available sentiment rather than proof that virtually every user will have the same experience.

Best suited for:

• practices offering microneedling and collagen induction therapy
• providers who want both microneedling and nano-channeling options
• patients seeking gradual improvements in overall skin quality
• practices treating concerns such as texture, fine lines, and acne scarring
• providers who value ongoing manufacturer support

Not ideal for:

• practices highly sensitive to recurring consumable costs
• patients expecting dramatic results from a single treatment
• patients unwilling to complete a treatment series when appropriate
• practices looking for a device with a large body of detailed independent patient reviews

Overall assessment: The CIT Pen appears to be a well-liked, versatile microneedling platform with particularly strong provider loyalty. The most compelling feedback isn’t the promotional claims about what it could do; it’s providers saying they’ve actually used the device for years and still recommend it. That’s a more useful signal—but the limited independent negative and detailed patient feedback keeps this from being a completely one-sided endorsement.