ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Current Status and Perception of Biostimulators in China: A Cross-Sectional Study on Medical Professionals and Patients.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Psychological Risk Assessment in Plastic Surgery via a DeepSeek Large Language Model: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Advancing Automated Facial Evaluation: A Framework for 3D Validation and Patient-Centered Outcomes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- Response to: Comment to: "Correction of Gynecomastia with Combination of Ultrasonic Liposuction (VASER) and Gland Excision through a Minimal Scar Incision: A Multi-Center Experience".Aesthetic plastic surgery · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBiostimulators were predominantly used for natural aesthetic outcomes, with comparatively insufficient local clinical and basic research data relative to global standards.
objectiveTo assess the current application and perceptions of biostimulators among medical professionals and patients in China, providing data to guide clinical practice.
methodsA cross-sectional study employing convenience sampling was conducted. Questionnaires were distributed to aesthetic medical professionals and patients with biostimulator experience. Physician surveys (53 items, including single-choice, multiple-choice, ranking, and open-ended questions) were collected offline between November 2024 (n=125). Patient surveys (11 items) were simultaneously administered offline (n=232). Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS 22.0, with absolute numbers and percentages (%) reported. The ranking questions were analyzed using the reverse scoring method.
resultsBiostimulators were widely applied for natural aesthetic outcomes (physicians: 84.0%; patients: 67.67%), particularly in facial treatments. Safety concerns (physicians: 55.56%; patients: 69.4%) and demands for robust preclinical and clinical evidence were prioritized. Participants also emphasized the need for standardized treatment protocols (physicians: 37.6%). Gender-specific preferences were observed, with males prioritizing contour definition and females favoring tightness and lifting. However, 40.0% of physicians expressed dissatisfaction with duration of lasting effect, while 39.2% desired enhanced efficacy. Additionally, 19.2%, 43.2%, and 14.4% of physicians reported dissatisfaction with pre-mixing protocols, storage stability, and post-injection massage techniques, respectively, indicating a need for product optimization.
conclusionBiostimulators are increasingly utilized for their natural aesthetic outcomes. Comprehensive preclinical data and reliable clinical evidence are critical for product selection. We advocate for collaborative efforts among manufacturers, physicians, and research professionals to develop detailed clinical guidelines and standardized training programs, thereby improving satisfaction among healthcare providers and patients alike. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41116114What 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.