ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2025
Radiofrequency for Facial & Neck Rejuvenation: A Bibliometric Analysis.
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. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiofrequency (RF) devices are increasingly utilized in facial and neck rejuvenation for their ability to remodel the dermis and stimulate neocollagenesis. Although efficacy and safety have been widely reported, patient-centered outcomes remain less well synthesized. The study aims to map global research trends on RF for facial and neck rejuvenation (2015-2025), focusing on efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes. A bibliometric-systematic literature review was conducted following PRISMA 2020. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, and LILACS were searched for English-language studies from 2015 to 2025. Bibliometric data from Scopus were analyzed in R (Bibliometrix, Biblioshiny). Performance indicators, co-authorship, co-citation, keyword analyses, and thematic evolution were assessed. Of 1446 records, 44 studies met the inclusion criteria. Publication growth averaged 7.2% annually, peaking in 2021. The United States led output (36.4%) and citations, followed by South Korea (22.7%) and China (18.2%). International collaboration networks were limited and centered on a few prolific authors. Early studies emphasized device parameters and safety, whereas post-2020 research shifted toward clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. Keywords highlighted wrinkles, skin laxity, and patient satisfaction as central axes. Research on RF rejuvenation has matured over the past decade, shifting from technical evaluation to patient-centered outcomes. Nevertheless, productivity is concentrated in a few regions and among a few authors, with an underrepresentation of Latin America and Africa. Broader international collaboration and consistent use of patient-reported outcome measures are needed.
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.