Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30120518›Full record

ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2018

Assessment of Subject and Physician Satisfaction after Long-Term Treatment of Glabellar Lines with AbobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport

Elena Gubanova, May Haddad Tabet, Yvonne Bergerova, Olena Moiseieva, Andrey Chemeris, Elena Sanches, Alisa Sharova, Luisa Rodriguez Pose, Romain Raymond, Inna Prygova and 1 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02353897 (An Assessment of Patient and Physician's Satisfaction After a Long Term Treatment of Glabellar Lines With Dysport®.), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02353897 completednot on this map

An Assessment of Patient and Physician's Satisfaction After a Long Term Treatment of Glabellar Lines With Dysport®.

TypeobservationalSponsorIpsenRan2014 to 2016Enrolled150ConditionsGlabellar Lines
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. [New botulinum toxins for aesthetic dermatology : A comprehensive review].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2021
    Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Elena GubanovaVallex Med Clinic of Preventive Medicine, Moscow National University of Food Production, Starokaluzhskoe Shosse, 62, Moscow, Russian Federation, 117630. elena_gubanova@mail.ru.
May Haddad TabetDr Haddad Clinics, Beirut, Lebanon.
Yvonne BergerovaBcD Clinic, Prague, Czech Republic.
Olena MoiseievaClinic of Aesthetic Medicine, Ankor, Kyiv, Ukraine.
Andrey ChemerisDepartment of Traditional Medicine, Central City Clinical Hospital, Almaty, Kazakhstan.
Elena SanchesMedical Center of Aesthetic Correction "Eklan", Moscow, Russian Federation.
Alisa SharovaAesthetic Medicine "Chistie prudi", Moscow, Russian Federation.
Luisa Rodriguez PoseIpsen Pharma, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Romain RaymondBiostatistics, Ividata, Levallois-Perret, France.
Inna PrygovaIpsen Pharma, Boulogne-Billancourt, France.
Ian CarlisleErase Aesthetic Services, Malvern, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough the short- and long-term effectiveness of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport

methodsAPPEAL was a noninterventional, prospective, longitudinal study in subjects administered ≥ 3 abobotulinumtoxinA injection cycles for moderate-to-severe GL, according to routine clinical practice. Subjects completed a satisfaction questionnaire at 3 weeks (± 7 days) after each cycle. Primary endpoint included subjects' overall satisfaction with GL after three injection cycles. Secondary endpoints included satisfaction after Cycles 1 and 2 and factors associated with satisfaction after each cycle. Physician satisfaction was also assessed after Cycles 1 and 3.

resultsOf 150 subjects enrolled, 135 completed the overall subject satisfaction questionnaire after Cycle 3. At 3 weeks after Cycle 3, 99.3% of subjects were 'very satisfied' (74.1%) or 'satisfied' (25.2%) with GL. Levels of subject satisfaction and associated factors after Cycles 1 and 2 were as large and significant as after Cycle 3 (83-100%, depending on question). Physicians' satisfaction with GL appearance, facial expression, and overall satisfaction was almost complete after the first injection (≥ 97.4%) and unanimous after the third (100%).

conclusionsIn the APPEAL study, overall satisfaction was high after three abobotulinumtoxinA injection cycles for GL based on both subjects' (99.3%) and physicians' (100.0%) assessments. High levels of subject satisfaction reported after Cycle 1 were maintained with repeated injections. No new safety signals were observed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 . Trial registration NCT02353897.

Indexed as

PhysiciansAdultBotulinum Toxins, Type ADrug Administration ScheduleEstheticsFemaleForeheadHumansInjections, SubcutaneousLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionPersonal SatisfactionPrognosisProspective StudiesabobotulinumtoxinABotulinum Toxins, Type AAbobotulinumtoxinADysport®Glabellar linesPhysician satisfactionSubject satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID30120518
PMCPMC6280832

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.