ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025
Development and Validation of Photonumeric Scales for Glabellar, Lateral Canthal, and Forehead Lines.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Upper facial lines are early signs of aging that impact self-image, underscoring the need for objective, evidence-based tools to support the growing demand for aesthetic interventions. Objectives: The authors of this study aim to develop and validate 4-point photonumeric scales for clinical assessment of glabellar, lateral canthal, and forehead lines at rest and dynamic expression, and evaluate their clinical relevance and alignment with patient-reported perceptions of wrinkle severity. Methods: Six 4-point photonumeric scales were developed to assess glabellar, lateral canthal, and forehead lines at rest and during maximum expression. Validation was conducted by 5 board-certified physicians over 2 live rating sessions, spaced at least 2 weeks apart. Participants ( Results: All scales demonstrated high intrarater (mean Conclusions: The validated scales demonstrated high reliability, clinical relevance, and strong alignment with patient-reported outcomes, supporting their use as objective tools for clinical assessment. Level of Evidence 5 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.