ArticleAnnals of dermatology2025
Comparative Analysis on the Efficacy of Monopolar Radiofrequency With Continuous Water Cooling and Conventional Cryogen Spray Cooling in Facial Rejuvenation.
Article in Annals of 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.
- Innovative Facial Contouring Using a Monopolar Radiofrequency Device with Continuous Water Cooling: An Integrated Clinical and Preclinical Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Trial
- Enhancement of Collagen and Elastic Fibers by Direct Contact Cooling-Based Monopolar Radiofrequency in a Minipig Model.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMonopolar radiofrequency (MRF) is widely used for non-invasive facial rejuvenation.
objectiveIn this study, we compared the clinical efficacy and patient-reported procedural pain of a novel MRF system with continuous water cooling (RF-CWC) versus conventional MRF with cryogen spray cooling (RF-CSC) in 22 Asian women.
methodsIn this prospective, randomized, split-face, single-blind trial, 22 participants received a single session of both RF-CWC and RF-CSC. Clinical outcomes-including changes in pore size, elasticity, skin density, fine lines, and lifting-were assessed over 8 weeks using quantitative measurements and investigator-assessed global improvement scores. Procedural pain was also recorded. To support the clinical findings, an
resultsRF-CWC demonstrated clinical efficacy comparable to that of RF-CSC in terms of lifting, skin volume, and wrinkle reduction, while significantly reducing procedural pain.
conclusionRF-CWC offers a clinically effective and better-tolerated alternative to traditional cryogen-cooled MRF for facial rejuvenation.
trial registrationClinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0010406.
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.