Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Comparison of Intradermal Versus Microneedling-Assisted Botulinum A Toxin Injection for Enlarged Facial Pores: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnlarged facial pores are a prevalent cosmetic concern affecting many individuals. Traditional treatments include topical agents and laser therapies, but recent advancements have introduced intradermal and microneedling-assisted Botulinum toxin type A (BoNTA) injections as promising alternatives. This study aims to compare the efficacy of these two methods in reducing the size of enlarged facial pores.
methodsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted at a referral centre in Iran. Thirty patients aged 25-60 years with enlarged facial pores were enrolled. Patients were randomized to receive intradermal BoNTA injections on one side of the face and microneedling-assisted BoNTA injections on the other side. Dermoscopic evaluation and physical examination were performed at baseline and 1-month post-treatment. Improvement in pore size was assessed by three blinded dermatologists using the Quartile Improvement Scale (QIS), and patient satisfaction was measured using the Likert scale.
resultsThe average age of participants was 34.2 years, with 29 females and one male. Dermoscopic and physical examination scores showed no significant difference between the two treatment modalities for both cheek and nose areas (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction scores were also comparable between the two sides (p = 0.13). Both treatments effectively reduced pore size, but no statistically significant difference was observed between intradermal and microneedling-assisted BoNTA injections.
conclusionBoth intradermal and microneedling-assisted BoNTA injections are effective in treating enlarged facial pores, with no significant difference in efficacy. These findings provide flexibility for dermatologists in selecting the appropriate treatment method based on patient preferences and clinical considerations.
Indexed as
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.