Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39708174›Full record

SynthesisArchives of dermatological research2024

Efficacy and safety of different hyaluronic acid fillers on cheek volume augmentation: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Amr Elrosasy, Mohamed Abo Zeid, Mahmoud Diaa Hindawi, Shirin Cadri, Ali Ahmed Ali Ismeal, Hatem Abdelmoneim Eldeeb, Mohamed A Aldemerdash, Abdelmalek Ebada Mahmoud Abdelghany

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

8 authors.

Amr ElrosasyFaculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed Abo ZeidFaculty of Medicine, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt. Mohamed_31059599@med.tanta.edu.eg.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-8165-9470
Mahmoud Diaa HindawiFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-3085-6665
Shirin CadriGrigore T. Popa, Faculty of Medicine and Pharmacy, Lasi, Romania.
Ali Ahmed Ali IsmealFaculty of Pharmacy, Minia University, Minia, Egypt.
Hatem Abdelmoneim EldeebFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed A AldemerdashFaculty of Medicine, Sohag University, Sohag, Egypt.
Abdelmalek Ebada Mahmoud AbdelghanyFaculty of Medicine, October 6 University, Giza, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVarious rejuvenation surgeries, including hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers, aim to address mid-face volume loss. However, literature on the comparative efficacy and safety of different HA fillers for the zygomatic area remains limited.

methodsThis systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA), adhering to NMA PRISMA 2020 and Cochrane guidelines. Searches were conducted on different bases. Eligible studies included patients with mid-face volume loss undergoing HA interventions. The primary outcome was the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) at different time points and the incidence of adverse events.

resultsAmong 1742 articles, six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria with a total of 579 patients. The studies evaluated Giselleligne, VYC-20, Neuramis Lidocaine and ART-Filler. Results showed that Giselleligne demonstrated superior safety compared to VYC-20, ART-Filler and Neuramis-Lidocaine (Risk Ratios (RR) = 0.27, 95% Confidence interval (CI) [0.14; 0.54]), (RR = 0.36, 95% CI [0.17; 0.75], & RR = 0.22, 95% CI [0.07; 0.67]) respectively However, there were no significant differences in the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale Assessment (GAIS) scores between HA fillers at 1, 3, and 6 months.

conclusionWhile no significant differences were observed in efficacy among HA fillers, Giselleligne emerged as a potentially safer option for the cheeks volume restoration. The study emphasizes the need for further well-designed RCTs to explore the long-term safety and durability of HA fillers. These findings contribute valuable insights for clinicians and patients in making evidence-based decisions regarding mid-face rejuvenation options.

Indexed as

CheekCosmetic TechniquesDermal FillersHyaluronic AcidRejuvenationEstheticsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSkin AgingTreatment OutcomeDermal FillersHyaluronic AcidART-FillerGiselleligneHyaluronic acidMidface volumeNeuramis lidocaineVYC-20

Identifiers

PMID39708174

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.