ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2021
The Development and Initial Validation of PUMC Localized Scleroderma Facial Aesthetic Index: A Pilot Study.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychosocial and Socioeconomic Determinants of Stigma in Facial Localized Scleroderma.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Damage evaluation of craniofacial localized scleroderma using magnetic resonance imaging.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Bony Hyperplasia Beneath Atrophic Soft Tissue: A Rare Case of En Coup de Sabre and Literature Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2023Article
- Association Between Fat Graft Retention and Blood Flow in Localized Scleroderma Patients: A Pilot Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLocalized scleroderma (LoS) is an autoimmune connective tissue disorder leading to serious long-term aesthetic impairment on patients. Objective evaluation methods are badly needed to facilitate the evaluation of the surgical treatment on individual patients and clinical studies.
objectiveTo develop and assess the reliability and validity of Peking Union Medical College LoS facial aesthetic index (PUMC LoSFAI).
methodsTwelve experts devoted their time and resources in the development and validation. LoS patients in the stable phase were recruited. Reliability and validity was then assessed. LoS patients were evaluated by two plastic surgeons using PUMC LoSFAI and LoS skin damage index (LoSDI). The PUMC LoSFAI comprises 4 domains for the local assessment (surface area of lesion, dyspigmentation, skin thickness and soft tissue atrophy) and 3 domains for the overall assessment (facial symmetry, proportion and profile) to describe LoS facial aesthetic impairment. Face-Q was completed by patients at each visit.
resultsThirty-two LoS patients had 96 visits, during which 138 lesions were assessed. PUMC LoSFAI and 7 domains demonstrated substantial to excellent inter- and intra-rater reliability (ICC 0.995, κ
conclusionsPUMC LoSFAI was developed and evaluated to play as a tool of aesthetic impairment assessment for LoS patients, which may facilitate the evaluation of the treatment on individual patients and clinical studies. PUMC LoSFAI demonstrated high reliability and validity, and further study in larger patient samples is needed to confirm these preliminary findings. 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 Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
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.