ReviewDermatologic therapy2021
Improving aseptic injection standards in aesthetic clinical practice.
Review in Dermatologic therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facial Injectable Fillers in Aesthetic Medicine: Clinical Applications and Safety Strategies.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- A Guide to Periprocedural Skin Care Regimen for Injectable and Nonenergy Cosmetic Procedures Based on a Consensus of 6 Aesthetic Practitioners.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the role of povidone‑iodine in the prevention of surgical site infections.Surgery open science · 2023Review
- Improving aseptic injection standards in aesthetic clinical practice.Dermatologic therapy · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The rise in popularity and demand for nonsurgical injectable aesthetic procedures is inherently accompanied by an increase in reported complications, particularly those related to infection. Aseptic technique is under the control of aesthetic practitioners and can be modified to minimize the potential for cross-contamination and infection. This should be a key consideration during all clinical procedures, particularly those involving breach of the skin's natural defenses and the use of soft tissue filler. A consensus group of five UK expert aesthetic clinicians were convened to discuss current best practice for aseptic techniques in medical aesthetics. The aim of the consensus group was to recommend a step-by-step procedure to achieve optimal aseptic practice in private clinics, and define important considerations for reducing infection risk during the whole patient journey: pre-, during- and postaesthetic procedure. Recommendations were based on current evidence and extensive clinical experience. Various procedure recommendations were made to achieve and maintain a high standard of asepsis and infection control. Guidance was divided into three phases for patients and health care professionals, covering preprocedure (including patient selection), during-procedure, and postprocedure considerations. Although adherence to standard hospital guidance on handwashing and cleanliness measures is a cornerstone of controlling cross-contamination, aesthetic clinics carry a high potential risk of infection-particularly as popular treatments with dermal fillers primarily involve the face. This expert consensus guidance recommends procedures to mitigate the potential risks of asepsis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.