Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38887534›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2023

Radiofrequency Microneedling: Technology, Devices, and Indications in the Modern Plastic Surgery Practice.

Orr Shauly, Troy Marxen, Ambika Menon, Daniel J Gould, Leonard B Miller, Albert Losken

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Orr Shauly
Ambika Menon
Leonard B Miller
Albert Losken

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Since the initial invention of microneedling, advancements have been made to improve the desired effects. The addition of radiofrequency to microneedling devices was developed within the past decade as a way to induce thermal injury and increase dermal heating to enhance the dermal wound healing cascade. Objectives: With an overabundance of literature and mainstream media focused on microneedling and radiofrequency microneedling, this review aims to focus on the available high-quality evidence. Methods: A comprehensive review of the literature was performed across PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD) and Embase (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) databases. Attention was focused on manuscripts that provided objective data with respect to clinical application, innovation, anatomy, and physiology. Results: Optimal outcomes are achieved when needle depth is targeted to the reticular dermis. Needle depth should reflect the relative differences in epidermal and dermal thickness throughout the face. A depth of at least 1.5 mm should be used for the forehead and temporal skin, 1.0 mm for the malar region, 2.0 mm (maximum depth for radiofrequency microneedling) for the nasal side walls, 0.5 mm for the perioral skin, and 1.5 mm for the neck. Deeper settings can be used with care to provide some fat reduction in the submentum. Conclusions: The authors find herein that radiofrequency microneedling is a safe adjunctive tool to surgical aesthetic procedures. The addition of radiofrequency poses an advance over traditional microneedling devices for skin tightening, with improvements in both safety and efficacy over time. Level of Evidence 5:

Identifiers

PMID38887534
PMCPMC11181949

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.