Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37780673›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery2023

Periorbital rejuvenation in the clinic: A state-of-the-art review.

Sarah M Russel, J Madison Clark

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Periorbital rejuvenation in the clinic: A state-of-the-art review.World journal of otorhinolaryngology - head and neck surgery · 2023
    Review
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

2 authors.

Sarah M RusselDepartment of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill North Carolina USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9299-8047
J Madison ClarkDivision of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Chapel Hill North Carolina USA.

Funding

Research Training in OtolaryngologyT32DC005360 · NIDCD · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI MANIS, PAUL B · 2003 to 2023
$2.8M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC005360
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To provide an overview of the various treatment options available in the clinic to achieve periorbital rejuvenation. Data Sources: Literature review and expert opinion. Conclusions: Periorbital rejuvenation in the clinic can be accomplished through a variety of treatment modalities, including topical therapies, skin resurfacing, and fillers and injectables. Furthermore, some surgical approaches, such as upper blepharoplasties, ptosis, and brow lifts, can be performed in the clinic under local anesthesia with only mild oral sedation. However, the successful execution of such procedures depends on proper patient selection and maximizing patient comfort.

Indexed as

blepharoplastychemexfoliationlaser therapyrejuvenationskin aging

Identifiers

PMID37780673
PMCPMC10541170

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.