Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37095274›Full record

Trial reportScientific reports2023

A pilot study comparing the efficacy of autologous cultured fibroblast injections with hyaluronic acid fillers for treating nasolabial folds.

Rungsima Wanitphakdeedecha, Janice Natasha C Ng, Phumithep Phumariyapong, Ya-Nin Nokdhes, Poramin Patthamalai, Ploypailin Tantrapornpong, Panittra Suphatsathienkul, Chalermkwan Apinuntham, Chadakan Yan, Yanisorn Nanchaipruek and 7 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

17 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rungsima WanitphakdeedechaDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand. rungsima.wan@mahidol.ac.th.
Janice Natasha C NgDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Phumithep PhumariyapongDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ya-Nin NokdhesDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Poramin PatthamalaiDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ploypailin TantrapornpongDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Panittra SuphatsathienkulDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chalermkwan ApinunthamDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Chadakan YanDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Yanisorn NanchaipruekDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Panwadee ThongjaroensirikulDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Pitchaya ManeeprasopchokeDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Thanya TechapichetvanichDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Sasima EimpunthDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Woraphong ManuskiattiDepartment of Dermatology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Pran-Nok Road, Bangkok Noi 10700, Bangkok, Thailand.
Saowalak ThanachaipiwatDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Uraiwan PanichDepartment of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Siriraj Hospital · THMahidol University · TH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Autologous cultured fibroblast injections for soft tissue augmentation are a potential alternative to other filler materials. No studies have compared autologous fibroblast injections and hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers for treating nasolabial folds (NLFs). To compare the efficacies and safeties of autologous cultured fibroblast injections and HA fillers for treating NLFs. This prospective, evaluator-blinded, pilot study enrolled 60 Thai female adult patients diagnosed with moderate to severe NLFs. They were randomized to receive either 3 treatments of autologous fibroblasts at 2-week intervals or 1 treatment with HA fillers. The primary outcome was the clinical improvement of the NLFs graded by 2 blinded dermatologists immediately after injection and at 1-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-ups. Objective measurement of the NLF volume was evaluated. Patient self-assessment scores, pain scores, and adverse reactions were recorded. Of the 60 patients, 55 (91.7%) completed the study protocol. The NLF volumes improved significantly in the autologous fibroblast group at all follow-ups relative to baseline (P = 0.000, 0.004, 0.000, 0.000, and 0.003). The patients in the autologous fibroblast group rated more noticeable NLF improvements than those in the HA filler group (3-month follow-up, 58.41% vs. 54.67%; 6-month follow-up, 52.50% vs. 46%; 12-month follow-up, 44.55% vs. 31.33%). No serious adverse reactions were recorded. Autologous fibroblast injections are safe and effective for treating NLFs. These injections also promise sustained growth of living cells, possibly leading to a greater persistence than shown by other fillers.

Indexed as

Cosmetic TechniquesDermal FillersSkin AgingAdultDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFibroblastsHumansHyaluronic AcidNasolabial FoldPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesTreatment OutcomeDermal FillersHyaluronic Acid

Identifiers

PMID37095274
PMCPMC10126053
OpenAlexW4366829896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.