ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Efficacy and Safety of Fillers for the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds: A Network meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness and Safety of STYLAGEAesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Trial
- Proportion of Adverse Events of Injectable Collagen Biostimulators After Facial Aesthetic Treatment: A Systematic Review Protocol.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Comparing the Safety and Effectiveness of PCL and PLLA Injections for Nasolabial Fold Correction.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Biopolymers in Facial Aesthetics: Gel-Based Applications, Safety, Effectiveness, and Future Prospects-A Systematic Review of the Literature.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Response to "Global Landscape of Nasolabial Folds Research: Hotspots, Gaps, and Future Directions".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNasolabial fold formation is increasingly becoming a cause of concern for many people. However, no network meta-analysis has compared the efficacy of different fillers in treating nasolabial folds. This network meta-analysis simultaneously compared the efficacy and safety of various fillers.
methodsWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used fillers to treat nasolabial folds. We extracted data of Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS), Global Esthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS, investigator) scores, GAIS scores (self-reported) and adverse events.
resultsWe included 13 RCTs. WSRS scores at 6 months were higher in patients receiving HA than those receiving poly (L-lactic acid) (mean difference [MD] 0.630, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.275, 0.985) but significantly lower in patients receiving HA than in those receiving bovine collagen (MD - 0.580, 95% CI - 0.777, - 0.383) and porcine collagen (MD - 0.525, 95% CI - 0.790, - 0.260). Regarding adverse events, HA was significantly less likely to cause nodule formation compared with bovine collagen (RR 0.593, 95% CI 0.438, 0.803).
conclusionHA is a safe filler for correcting nasolabial folds, and poly (L-lactic acid) showed potential in treating nasolabial folds. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
38600338What 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.