SynthesisLasers in medical science2024
Does electrophysical agents work for cellulite treatment? a systematic review of clinical trials.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cellulite, a perceived alteration in skin topography, is predominantly found in adipose tissue-rich body regions such as the hips, buttocks, thighs, and abdomen. Contrary to common belief, the etiology and pathophysiology of cellulite are not well-established or universally agreed upon. This lack of understanding about the actual etiology of cellulite directly influences the selection of suitable treatments that can address both the aesthetic and inflammatory aspects of the condition. Various treatment methods, including electrophysical agents like electric currents, radiofrequency, ultrasound, and photobiomodulation, have been tested. However, the questionable methodological quality of many studies complicates the determination of effective treatments for cellulite. In this study, we conducted a systematic review of clinical studies that utilized electrophysical agents in cellulite treatment.
methodsWe employed the PICO (population, intervention, control, and outcome) process to develop our search strategy and establish inclusion/exclusion criteria. We searched five databases: Medline, Central, Scopus, Lilacs, and PEDro, for studies conducted between 2001 and July 2021 that involved cellulite treatment with electrophysical agents. To ensure systematicity and guide study selection, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
resultsOur initial search yielded 556 articles: 379 from Medline, 159 from Central, and 18 from Lilacs. After applying our inclusion criteria, only 32 studies remained. Of these, only two (6.2%) were evaluated as having strong and good methodology via the QualSyst tool.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that the quality of evidence from clinical studies on the use of electrophysical agents for cellulite treatment remains subpar. Further studies with robust experimental designs and more precise assessment techniques are necessary. While our study does not refute the effectiveness of the techniques used for cellulite treatment, it underscores the need for additional well-designed trials.
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.