ReviewJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Noninvasive Assessment Methods for the Therapeutic Effect Following Facial Rejuvenation.
Review 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.
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.
- Assessment of Subepidermal Low-Echogenic Band via High-Frequency Ultrasound for Evaluating the Efficacy of Platelet-Rich Plasma Injection in Treating Facial Skin Photoaging: A Case Series.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- Noninvasive Assessment Methods for the Therapeutic Effect Following Facial Rejuvenation.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs the demand for facial rejuvenation continues to rise, monitoring the response to therapy is worthy of attention. However, a standardized system for assessing therapeutic effects is currently lacking. This study aims to review the existing noninvasive efficacy evaluation tools for facial rejuvenation and analyze their advantages and disadvantages.
methodsAn extensive literature search was conducted in PubMed to identify articles on efficacy evaluation tools for facial rejuvenation published between 1995 and 2024.
resultsWe classify the available measurement tools as subjective assessment methods, imaging techniques, and biophysical methods. Most subjective scales are based on clear definitions and standardized photographs, which are evaluated by dermatologists. Various scales focusing on different clinical features are continuously being developed, making it challenging to compare study outcomes. Imaging techniques are generally more precise and accurate. The information collected by these techniques is more convenient to store, search, and analyze, indicating their significant potential for monitoring efficacy. However, the high cost of equipment and complexity of operation may limit the application. Biophysical parameters can indirectly measure the severity of skin aging, but their repeatability and accuracy require further validation.
conclusionThis review offers a comprehensive overview of the existing efficacy evaluation methods for facial rejuvenation and discusses pertinent details. There is no single best assessment method. When selecting outcome measures in clinical practice or scientific research, several factors must be considered, including therapeutic objectives, convenience, and accuracy.
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.