SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Comparative Analysis of Cellulite Treatment Modalities: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facial Overfilled Syndrome: A Narrative Clinical Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Review
- Enzymatic Management of Facial Overfilled Syndrome: A Case Series and Narrative Review.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
- Using High Frequency Ultrasound to Assess the Efficacy of Anti-Cellulite Treatments.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCellulite is a highly prevalent and aesthetically distressing skin condition. Whilst there are a variety of treatment modalities, none are definitively established.
objectiveThis systematic review aims to assess invasive and noninvasive treatment modalities for cellulite management.
methodsThe review protocol was published and registered a priori (PROSPERO CRD42022359334). A comprehensive electronic search for relevant randomised controlled trials, (RCTs) was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science databases. Study quality and risk of bias were assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool, respectively.
resultsOverall, 753 studies were initially identified, of which 24 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) satisfied the eligibility criteria with a total of 2084 patients with a mean follow-up of 3.33 ± 13.4 weeks. Evaluated interventions included mechanical stimulation, topical therapy, shock wave therapy (SWT), laser and light-based devices, radiofrequency therapy, subcutaneous injectables, and ultrasound. SWT emerged as a standout intervention, demonstrating a consistent cellulite reduction score of 2.07 ± 0.39 across four studies. Radiofrequency therapy exhibited a statistically significant reduction of thigh circumference (- 2.09 cm, p < 0.001) and subcutaneous tissue thickness (- 2.23 cm, p < 0.001). Subcutaneous injectables, specifically collagenase Clostridium histolyticum-aaes, demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in the clinician-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (17.0%) and patient-reported photonumeric cellulite severity scale (25.7%) (p < 0.001). The overall quality of the studies using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation approach was moderate.
conclusionThis is the first methodologically robust systematic review evaluating interventions for cellulite. SWT, radiofrequency therapy, and subcutaneous injectables have shown promising findings in cellulite treatment. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: The journal asks authors to assign a level of evidence to each article. For a complete description of Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, see the Table of Contents or the online Instructions for Authors at www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
39547984What 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.