Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2024
Higher Responder Rates Observed With Live Participant Assessment Versus Photographic Assessment After VYC-20L Hyaluronic Acid Treatment for Chin Augmentation.
Trial report in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Surgical vs Non-surgical Chin Augmentation: A Systematic Review of Techniques Satisfaction, and Complications.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Long-term Safety and Effectiveness of Cold-Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled, Double-Blind Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn an evaluator-blinded, randomized controlled trial, the hyaluronic acid soft-tissue filler VYC-20L injectable gel was safe and effective for correcting volume deficits and retrusion in the chin.
objectivesThe objective of this subanalysis was to compare responder rates obtained with photographic vs live assessments.
methodsParticipants were randomized 3:1 to VYC-20L treatment or a 6-month, no-treatment control period followed by optional treatment. Responder rates (≥1-point improvement from baseline on the validated Allergan Chin Retrusion Scale [ACRS]) obtained with photographic assessments and live assessments at Month 6 were compared. Prespecified subgroup analyses compared responder rates by baseline ACRS severity, filler volume, cannula usage, and investigation site.
resultsVYC-20L was effective for chin augmentation as evaluated with both live and photographic assessments. The ACRS responder rates at Month 6 were 91.8% with live assessments and 56.3% with photographic assessments. Consistently higher response rates were observed by live vs photographic assessment regardless of baseline ACRS severity, filler volume, cannula usage, and investigation site.
conclusionsLive assessment of ACRS response after VYC-20L treatment resulted in higher responder rates than photographic assessment, supporting the use of live assessment for this indication to approximate real-world clinical practice. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1:
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.