SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers With or Without Lidocaine in the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Safety and Effectiveness of a Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Filler in Korean Patients for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds: A Randomized, Patient- and Evaluator-Blinded, Paired Study.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Injectable Cross-Linked Sodium Hyaluronate Gel Containing Lidocaine for Correcting Infraorbital Hollowing.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Efficacy and Safety of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers for Horizontal Neck Lines: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Review
- Effectiveness and Safety of Belotero Intense ± Lidocaine for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds, Marionette Lines, and Lip Volume Enhancement: A Randomized Post-Market Clinical Follow-Up Study.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
- Hyaluronic Acid Filler CPM-V ± Lidocaine for Chin Augmentation: A Randomized, Multicenter, Open-Label Post-Market Follow-Up Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Comparing the Safety and Effectiveness of PCL and PLLA Injections for Nasolabial Fold Correction.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 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
objectiveTo update the evidence on the effectiveness and safety of hyaluronic acid gel combined with lidocaine for treating nasolabial folds.
methodsWe searched electronic databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science using subject headings and keywords associated with hyaluronic acid and lidocaine in the context of nasolabial folds. Inclusion criteria were met by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy and safety of hyaluronic acid gel with or without lidocaine. Outcomes measured included visual pain analog scale (VAS) scores, wrinkle severity scale scores, and adverse events. The quality of RCTs was evaluated using the Cochrane Randomized Controlled Trials Scale, which encompasses criteria such as randomization, allocation concealment, blinding, dropout, and withdrawal rates, and was assessed by two independent reviewers.
resultsNo significant difference in overall wrinkle severity rating scale scores was observed between HA with lidocaine and HA without lidocaine [MD = 0.08, 95% CI (- 0.09, 0.24), P = 0.36]. However, there was a significant reduction in pain scale scores (VAS) [SMD = -2.47, 95% CI (- 4.15, - 0.79), P = 0.004]; no significant differences were noted in the ncidence of at least one adverse event [RR = 0.97, 95% CI (0.90, 1.05), P = 0.51]; and there were no significant differences in swelling [RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.92, 1.06), P = 0.80], erythema [RR = 1.01, 95% CI (0.91, 1.11), P = 0.91], bruising [RR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.89, 1.13), P = 0.86], itching [RR = 1.03, the 95% CI (0.88, 1.21), P = 0.74], induration [RR = 1.04, 95% CI (0.92, 1.17), P = 0.55], and papules [RR = 0.77, 95% CI (0.58, 1.02), P = 0.07]. There was a significantly lower incidence of tenderness [RR = 0.91, 95% CI (0.86, 0.97), P = 0.002] only in the control group. Sensitivity analysis confirmed the stability of results across all outcome indicators with low sensitivity and high confidence. Subgroup analysis indicated higher wrinkle severity scores among East Asians compared to Europeans and Americans.
conclusionsHA containing lidocaine significantly reduces pain and is comparable in effectiveness and safety of HA without lidocaine. The clinical effects appear more pronounced in East Asians. Due to the limited number of related studies, further research is necessary. 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
39014236What 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.