ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2023
Novel Validated Five-point Photonumeric Scales for Assessment of Static and Dynamic Forehead Lines.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2023. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence versus Human Assessment in the Treatment of Upper Facial Wrinkles with Abobotulinum Toxin A.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2026Article
- Diffusion Characteristics of LetibotulinumtoxinA, OnabotulinumtoxinA, and AbobotulinumtoxinA and its Impact on Muscle Relaxation: A Randomized Split-Face Clinical Trial.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of Photonumeric Scales for Glabellar, Lateral Canthal, and Forehead Lines.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
- Real-World Outcomes of a Novel Botulinum Toxin A for Upper Face Aesthetics: Insights From Routine Clinical Practice.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The objective of this investigation was to create and validate five-point photonumeric scales which assess static and dynamic forehead lines. Methods: Two different novel five-point photonumeric scales for the assessment of static and dynamic forehead lines were developed. Moreover, a photoguide was created, including subjects from both sexes, all age groups, and different Fitzpatrick skin types. A total of 11 raters from all over the world were involved in the digital validation, whereas four raters performed a live validation. Results: The Croma Static Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale showed almost perfect inter and intra-rater agreement in both the digital and the live setting with inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-0.89] in the first digital rating and 0.82 [95% CI: 0.78-0.86] in the second digital rating. The Croma Dynamic Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale showed almost perfect inter and intra-rater agreement in the digital setting with inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.83 [95% CI: 0.79-0.86] in the first digital rating and 0.80 [95% CI: 0.75-0.84] in the second rating and almost substantial agreement in the live setting. Conclusions: The Croma Static Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale and the Croma Dynamic Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale have excellent inter and intra-rater agreements to be justifiably used in the clinical and study setting, both digitally and live across ethnic groups.
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.