SynthesisAesthetic surgery journal2025
Microfocused Ultrasound With Visualization (MFU-V) Effectiveness and Safety: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- How to Treat Skin Quality: A Consensus-Based Treatment Algorithm and Expert Guidance.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Guideline
- Integrative Aesthetics: Shaping the Emerging Frontier of Modern Aesthetic Medicine.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Review
- Response to: Enhancing Methodological Rigor in MFU-V Meta-analyses: A Commentary on Evidence Synthesis and Interpretation.Aesthetic surgery journal · 2025Article
- Early Experience With Ultherapy Prime in Asia Pacific: A Pilot Case Series.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2025Article
- Microfocused Ultrasound With Visualization for Body Indications: A Global Expert Consensus on Best Practices for Treatment of the Abdomen and Arms.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Microfocused ultrasound with visualization (MFU-V) is an advanced, noninvasive cosmetic procedure widely performed for skin lifting and tightening. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the aesthetic effectiveness, patient satisfaction, skin quality, and safety profile of MFU-V treatment. A comprehensive search of 5 bibliographic databases up to 2023 was conducted. Pooled effect estimates with random effects models and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Out of 4019 references, 42 studies were included. Meta-analysis showed 89% of patients (95% CI: 81%-94%; I2: 63%, n = 411) demonstrated some degree of global aesthetic improvement, as assessed by investigators. Similarly, 84% of patients (95% CI: 73%-91%; I2: 64%, n = 312) reported improvement following treatment. Satisfaction of any level was reported by 84% of patients (95% CI: 61%-94%; I²: 52%, n = 326), and 62% (95% CI: 37%-82%; I²: 3%, n = 172) when "neutral" as a response option was provided for patients. Skin quality (eg, wrinkles, texture) also improved. Patients reported a pooled mean pain score of 4.85 (95% CI: 4.35, 5.35; I2: 97%, n = 785), indicating moderate pain. Common adverse events included erythema, edema, swelling, bruising, and tenderness, all of which were generally mild to moderate in severity. Overall, our analysis demonstrated a notable increase in global aesthetic improvement and patient satisfaction following MFU-V treatment, accompanied by moderate pain and a generally favorable safety profile. However, the potential misclassification of neutral responses as positive may result in an overestimation of the treatment's efficacy. These findings highlight the need for well-designed trials to further explore MFU-V's clinical applications. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3 (THERAPEUTIC):
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.