ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2023
IncobotulinumtoxinA for the Treatment of Glabella and Forehead Dynamic Lines: A Real-Life Longitudinal Case Series.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Aesthetic Improvements Over Time: Long-Term Efficacy and Additional Outcomes of IncobotulinumtoxinA in the Simultaneous Treatment of Upper Facial Lines.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Trial
- Botulinum Toxin A Myths, Evidence, and Global Media Narratives.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
- Challenging Interchangeability: Dynamic Dose-Response Modelling of Botulinum Toxin A Products.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Review
- Decades of Scientific Data and Global Media Reporting on Complications in Non-surgical Aesthetic Treatments for a Transparent Safety Profile: Kissing Snow White Awake.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Assessment of the Efficacy and Durability of IncobotulinumtoxinA in the Treatment of the Upper Face in Adult Women.Dermatology and therapy · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: There is substantial interpersonal variation in the patterns of muscular contraction that substantiates the use of personalized points of application and dosages in clinical practice to achieve optimal results. Nevertheless, there has been no real-life therapeutic series with botulinum toxin for aesthetic treatment of the face in which the subjects were systematically followed to assess its long-term benefit. Purpose: To assess the performance and length of the treatment of glabellar and forehead lines with IncobotulinumtoxinA in a real-life setting. Patients and Methods: We enrolled 20 adults with indications for the treatment of upper facial dynamic lines (glabella and forehead) with botulinum toxin. The protocols of injection points were personalized by the injectors. The participants were photographed under maximum facial contraction before the application (D0) and after 15, 90, 120, and 180 days. The photos were randomly assessed by two blinded experienced raters to consensually grade the dynamic lines according to the Merz Aesthetics Scales (MAS). Efficacy was defined as the reduction in the MAS score. Results: At D15, 18 (90%; 95% CI: 80%-100%) participants reached the zero score, or a 2-point reduction on the MAS score from the forehead and 16 (80%; 95% CI: 65-90%) reached that reduction for the glabella. These values from D90 were 14 (70%; 95% CI: 55-85%) for both sites. At D120, these values were 11 (55%; 95% CI: 35-75%) and 8 (40%; 95% CI: 25-55%) for the forehead and glabella. At D180, 10 (50%; 95% CI: 30-70%) participants presented a MAS score for forehead or glabella dynamic lines lower than the score assessed at D0. Conclusion: As much as 70% of the patients sustained a reduction of scores after 120 days of the treatment for dynamic glabellar and forehead lines. Half of the patients evidenced prolonged benefit at 180 days.
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.