ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2025
The Clinical Impact of Different Cryolipolysis Protocols: An Integrative Review.
Review in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionCryolipolysis is one of the main technologies used as a non-invasive treatment for reducing fat located in different body regions. The literature demonstrates significant effects in reducing fat content and indicates the safety of the technique, since the risks are low and can be avoided by taking a good initial history. The main results indicate approximately 20% reduction after treatments; however, the clinical protocols studied present significant differences related to the temperature used and the treatment time in addition to the difference between the number of exposures and the number of areas possible to be treated in the same session.
objectiveTherefore, this review aimed to identify the treatment protocols presented by the authors and compare the results obtained, to clarify which protocols presented significant results to be considered in clinical use, in addition to assisting in the construction of new protocols for future applications.
methodsIn the search carried out on PubMed, Lilacs and Embase, 32 articles were selected, all of which were considered for this review.
resultsThe results obtained by evaluating the studies demonstrated differences mainly in the regions of application, application time, with the most used temperature being close to - 10 °C.
conclusionThe results found related to the technique had positive effects on all protocols, which makes it difficult to discuss the main findings and choose and/or highlight the most promising protocol. NO LEVEL ASSIGNED: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each submission to which Evidence-Based Medicine rankings are applicable. This excludes Review Articles, Book Reviews, and manuscripts that concern Basic Science, Animal Studies, Cadaver Studies, and Experimental Studies. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40316791What 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.