ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025
Neuromodulator Co-Administration With a Vibration Device: Patient Comfort Study.
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. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Injection of neuromodulators, such as botulinum toxins, is a common procedure. Used on-label, neuromodulators are safe and effective, but injection is often accompanied by pain. Objectives: The aim of the study is to understand whether administration of botulinum toxin injections with a vibration device improves patient comfort. Methods: This single-center, randomized, split-face, controlled study evaluated 1 treatment session with botulinum toxin A (5 injection points) for correction of moderate-to-severe glabellar lines administered ± a vibrating beauty bar to improve comfort. After treating the corrugator muscle on 1 side, vibration was added or discontinued for the other side according to randomization; patients selected the method for procerus muscle injection. Patients were aged 18 to 64 and treatment naive. Pain was assessed on a visual analog scale (0 = none, 10 = worst imaginable), and questionnaires assessed treatment experience and preference. Results: Sixty patients completed the study. Mean pain assessment score for the group was 4.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 2.1) for injections administered without vibration compared with 4.0 (SD = 2.2) for those with vibration. Those with the first 2 injections with vibration reported a mean pain of 3.8, which increased to 4.8 for injections without vibration. Results were numerically higher for patients who had the first 2 injections without vibration, with mean scores of 4.9 without vibration and 4.2 with vibration. Investigator pain assessments were similar. Most (81.7%) patients chose vibration for the fifth injection. Patients had a positive perception of added vibration. Conclusions: Both patients and investigators reported reduced pain/improved comfort when a vibration device was paired with the aesthetic treatment injection. Level of Evidence: : 2 (Therapeutic).
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.