ArticleGMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW2023
Assessment of the reproducibility and accuracy of the Visia
Article in GMS Interdisciplinary plastic and reconstructive surgery DGPW, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrated Topical Skincare Enhances Picosecond Laser Treatment Outcomes for Photoaging: A Prospective Split-Face Trial.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Trial
- Skin aging: mechanisms, evaluation, and rejuvenation.The EMBO journal · 2026Review
- Use of VISIA-CR Generation 5 in Aesthetic Skin Assessment: A Single-Case Review.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Risk factors associated with higher skin age relative to chronological age in community-dwelling middle-aged Japanese adults.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Different Pathways of Skin Aging: Objective Instrumental Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Laser-induced optical breakdown is a prior strategy for acquired melanin-increased disorder in dermal layer.Lasers in medical science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to investigate the reproducibility and accuracy of the Visia Methods: Nineteen participants underwent facial capture with the Visia Results: In the assessment of the reproducibility of the data of the capture system the standard deviation from the frontal captures among all participants was about 3% when the absolute scores of the wrinkles were compared with each other; specifically, the average deviation was 3.36% during the first capture session and 3.4% during the second capture session. Meanwhile, the standard deviation of the measurements was about 9% when the percentiles were compared; specifically, the average deviation was 8.2% during the first capture session and 10.7% during the second capture session. In the assessment of the accuracy the correlation between the calendrical age and the calculated Truskin Age Conclusion: The assessment of the reproducibility and accuracy of the objective measurement method, the Visia
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.