ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2024
A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Single-group Studies Assessing the Role of Calcium Hydroxylapatite in Aesthetic Enhancements and Satisfaction.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many studies assess aesthetic effectiveness of calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA), with single-group designs as the most frequently applied designs in practice. This study systematically reviewed CaHA's effectiveness for aesthetic purposes among these studies. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across 5 bibliographic databases. Single-group studies with at least 10 human adults were included. Summary measures of patients satisfaction and global aesthetic improvement scores were combined using the generalized linear mixed model. This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA reporting standards. Results: Of 3131 records, 46 single-group studies, majority focused on facial areas (n = 32), were included for final qualitative analysis. A total number of 27 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Findings of the meta-analysis showed that 98% (95% confidence interval [CI], 91%-99%; Conclusions: Our findings showed aesthetic improvements and satisfaction following CaHA injections in both facial and nonfacial areas. However, studies focusing on nonfacial regions are limited. We recommend more rigorously designed trials to better understand CaHA's clinical effects.
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.