Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40236885›Full record

ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025

Split-Face Comparison of Two Hyaluronic Acid Fillers: Intersection of Rheology and Tissue Behavior in Midface Rejuvenation.

Steven F Weiner, Jessica A Hicks, Thu Nguyen, Matthew Meckfessel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

4 authors.

Steven F Weiner
Jessica A Hicks
Thu Nguyen
Matthew Meckfessel

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA) fillers are one of the most popular aesthetic treatments for midface volumization, achieving optimal aesthetic improvements. Given the variety of HA filler products available, it is important for injectors to understand how their rheological properties can influence behavior in tissues. Objectives: To evaluate and compare (1) product integration and dynamic support and (2) lifting capacity of 2 rheologically different HA fillers (HA Contour [HA Methods: Randomized, split-face study ( Results: With similar average total injection volumes, both fillers had comparable lifting capacity in the midface (HA Conclusions: HA Level of Evidence 3 Therapeutic:

Identifiers

PMID40236885
PMCPMC11997782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.