Trial reportAesthetic surgery journal2026
Effectiveness and Safety of a Cross-linked Hyaluronic Acid Plus Mannitol Filler for the Correction of Nasolabial Folds in Chinese Subjects: A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Study.
Trial report in Aesthetic surgery journal, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHyaluronic acid-based dermal fillers are commonly used to correct prominent nasolabial folds (NLFs), a hallmark of aging.
objectivesThis study aimed to verify the effectiveness and safety of STYLAGE L filler (Laboratoires VIVACY, Archamps, France) vs a well-established comparator, Restylane (Galderma, Uppsala, Sweden), for correcting moderate-to-severe NLFs in Chinese subjects.
methodsA 12-month, randomized, subject- and evaluator-blinded, controlled, parallel-group, noninferiority study was conducted across 8 hospitals in China. The primary endpoint was the percentage of Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale (WSRS) responders 6 months after last treatment. Secondary endpoints included Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) responders, subject satisfaction, device performance, and tolerance.
resultsIn total, 194 and 196 subjects were randomly allocated to the treatment (STYLAGE L) and control (Restylane) groups, respectively, and analyzed. In the primary endpoint analysis, noninferiority of STYLAGE L was demonstrated because the lower limit of the 95% CI was greater than -10% (difference in percentage of responders, 9.33%; 95% CI, 2.10%-16.56%). WSRS responder rates were statistically significantly higher in the treatment compared with the control group at 6 months (9.19%; 95% CI, 1.85%-16.54%; P = .0157), 9 months (19.75%; 95% CI, 10.97%-28.53%; P < .0001), and 12 months (11.36%; 95% CI, 2.64%-20.09%; P = .0116). GAIS responder rates were high in both groups throughout the study (>73%). Subject satisfaction was high. Both devices were well tolerated. Device performance scores were statistically significantly higher (ie, aspects were "harder") for STYLAGE L vs Restylane.
conclusionsThe study demonstrated the noninferiority of STYLAGE L vs Restylane in correcting NLFs in Chinese subjects. Results up to 12 months suggest comparable safety and effectiveness profiles. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1 (THERAPEUTIC):
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.