ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025
Efficacy of Conservative Techniques for Mechanical Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review.
Review 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A boom in the online popularity of conservative mechanical facial rejuvenation techniques, such as facial exercises, myofunctional therapy, and manual massages, has proliferated as noninvasive alternatives to aesthetic procedures. Despite this, scientific evidence regarding their efficacy and safety remains unclear. The aim of this study is to determine the efficacy of conservative mechanical facial exercises and related paraphernalia or adjuncts in achieving optimal facial aesthetic outcomes. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered on PROSPERO. Databases, including PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, SciELO, AMED, PROQUEST, Google Scholar, CENTRAL, OVID, and SCOPUS, were searched for studies evaluating mechanical facial exercises in adults. Studies reporting objective and validated subjective facial aesthetic outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane and JBI tools. Twelve studies comprising 321 women aged 30 to 70 met the inclusion criteria. Interventions included facial exercises (
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.