ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Efficacy and Safety of Radiofrequency and Focused Ultrasound in Facial Rejuvenation: A Single-Center, Single-Blind, Non-Randomized Prospective Trial.
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Injectable Filler-Based Chin Augmentation: A Systematic Review of Non-Surgical Volumetric Techniques.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Radiofrequency and Focused Ultrasound in Facial Rejuvenation: A Single-Center, Single-Blind, Non-Randomized Prospective Trial.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough both radiofrequency (RF) and focused ultrasound (FU) are commonly used non-invasive skin-tightening methods, comparative studies between the two methods are lacking.
objectiveTo study and compare the efficacy and safety of RF and FU in facial rejuvenation.
methodsWe recruited 36 patients to receive a single treatment: the RF group (n = 21) and the FU group (n = 15). Every participant was evaluated on baseline (T0), 1-month follow-up (T1) and 3-month follow-up (T3). Three blinded dermatologists used the FLR scale, Modified Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale (MFWS), and Allergan Skin Roughness Scale to assess facial wrinkles. Safety profiles were recorded, and subjects completed questionnaires to provide subjective evaluations.
resultsIntergroup comparison indicated that the ultrasound group showed superior efficacy over the RF group in the mid-face (Z = 2.915, p = 0.004) and lower face (Z = 2.142, p = 0.046) on T1. Intragroup comparison observed a statistically significant reduction in FLR and MFWS scores with both treatments. Subjective satisfaction aligned with objective results, and no severe adverse reactions were observed.
conclusionBoth RF and FU are effective in facial rejuvenation, though their efficacy differs. They are comparably safe and yield high patient satisfaction.
trial registrationChiCTR number: ChiCTR2500097849.
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.