SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2022
Monophasic and Biphasic Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Esthetic Correction of Nasolabial Folds: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Midface Augmentation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Conditions to Consider When Choosing Fillers.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness and Safety of a Cross-linked Hyaluronic Acid Plus Mannitol Filler for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Subjects: A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Trial
- Effectiveness and Safety of STYLAGEAesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Trial
- Facial Injectable Fillers in Aesthetic Medicine: Clinical Applications and Safety Strategies.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- Anatomical Considerations and Technique for Nasolabial Fold Thread Lifting.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Modulating Rheological Properties via Non-Cross-Linked Phase in Biphasic Hyaluronic Acid Fillers.ACS omega · 2025Article
- Comparing the Safety and Effectiveness of PCL and PLLA Injections for Nasolabial Fold Correction.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Review
- Performance and Safety of Amino-Acid- and Hydroxyapatite Enriched-Hyaluronic Acid Intradermal Gel in Facial Skin Defects.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- Disastrous cerebral and ocular vascular complications after cosmetic facial filler injections: a retrospective case series study.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Bridging a Century-Old Problem: The Pathophysiology and Molecular Mechanisms of HA Filler-Induced Vascular Occlusion (FIVO)-Implications for Therapeutic Interventions.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHyaluronic acid (HA) fillers have become the most popular dermal fillers for esthetic nasolabial folds (NLFs) correction. Based on the cross-linking method, they can be classified as monophasic or biphasic types.
objectivesThe aim of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy and safety of monophasic HA fillers with that of biphasic HA fillers for treatment of NLFs. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Chinese databases were searched from inception to January 2021.
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared treatment outcomes of a monophasic HA filler with a biphasic HA filler for esthetic NLF correction were selected. Twenty-two RCTs with totally 1848 subjects were included to this meta-analysis. A significantly higher improvement of NLF severity score was seen for monophasic fillers than biphasic fillers at 2 (p = 0.005), 8 (p <0.0001), 12 (p = 0.03), 16 (p = 0.005), 24 (p <0.00001), 36 (p = 0.007), and 52 week (p <0.0001) after treatment.
resultsThe effect was retained regardless of ethnicity, total injection volume, and baseline NLF severity. More subjects preferred monophasic fillers over biphasic ones (≤7 months: RR = 3.45, 95% CI 1.17 to 10.11; >7 months: RR = 2.37, 95% CI 1.45 to 3.86). Rate of post-injection pain was significantly lower for monophasic fillers (RR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.78 to 0.92, p <0.0001), but no statistical difference was observed for other post-injection adverse events. Compared to biphasic HA fillers, monophasic HA fillers were associated with a greater and more durable esthetic NLFs improvement, a lower rate of post-injection pain, and were favored by more patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: 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 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
35066619What 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.