Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2024
A Prospective, Randomized, Double-Blind, Split-Face, Comparative Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of DKL23 and Juvéderm Volift for Correcting Moderate-to-Severe Nasolabial Folds.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Adverse Events in Nonsurgical Facial Aesthetic Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Oral diseases · 2026Pooled it
- Cosmetic Medicine and Aesthetic Surgery Journal: The Beautiful Bond Between Noninvasive Aesthetic Medicine and Plastic Surgery.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Article
- Hyaluronic Acid ProfhiloMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHyaluronic acid dermal fillers are used for multiple indications, including wrinkle correction and restoration of volume/fullness.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of 2 hyaluronic acid products for correcting moderate to severe nasolabial folds (NLFs).
methodsA prospective, randomized, double-blind, split-face study was undertaken. The subjects' left and right NLFs were randomly allocated for treatment with DKL23 or Juvéderm Volift. Follow-up was conducted at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. The changes from baseline on the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale and the Global Aesthetics Improvement Scale were evaluated. Posttreatment adverse events (AEs) were recorded.
resultsForty-eight women (median age, 57.0 years) with Type I to VI skin were enrolled. Both treatments showed statistically significant improvement (P < .0001) in NLFs according to the Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale score from baseline to each of the time points assessed. The improvement in NLFs was maintained until the end of the study (9 months). Furthermore, the change from baseline to each of the time points assessed was similar between DKL23 and Juvéderm Volift. Investigator- and subject-rated Global Aesthetics Improvement Scale scores showed similar rates of improvement (indicated by the sum of responses of improved, much improved, or very much improved) between the 2 products. The AEs reported in the study were in line with previous and expected experience after injection of hyaluronic acid dermal fillers. The types of AEs, their rates, intensity, and duration were comparable between the 2 products.
conclusionsDKL23 improved NLF severity from baseline and for up to 9 months, and the results were comparable to the improvement shown by Juvéderm Volift. Treatment was safe and well tolerated. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2:
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.