Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
A Prospective Study Comparing the Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid and Collagen in the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Prospective Study Comparing the Efficacy of Hyaluronic Acid and Collagen in the Treatment of Nasolabial Folds.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHyaluronic acid (HA) is established as the gold standard for nasolabial folds (NLFs) correction. However, its use is frequently associated with transient edema and potential migration. These limitations have spurred investigation into collagen-based fillers as viable alternatives characterized by comparable efficacy and a favorable safety profile.
objectiveThis prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of HA and collagen fillers in NLFs augmentation.
methodsBetween January 2022 and December 2023, 100 patients with moderate to severe NLFs (Wrinkle Severity Rating Scale Grades 2-4) were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive either collagen (n = 50) or HA (n = 50) injections. Treatment protocols employed tailored injection doses according to baseline NLFs severity and indentation depth. Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) evaluation of standardized photographs was performed to assess outcomes at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
resultsBaseline characteristics showed no intergroup disparities. Both materials produced similar improvements in NLFs reduction initially and at 3 months. At 6 months, HA maintained significantly greater improvements in NLF dimensions compared with collagen. GAIS scores indicated superior immediate and 3-month aesthetic outcomes with collagen, while HA showed better aesthetic maintenance at 6 months.
conclusionThis study demonstrated comparable short-term efficacy between collagen and HA for NLFs correction. These findings suggest collagen may be a practical alternative for patients seeking rapid correction with minimal downtime, while HA remains superior for long-term correction. Treatment selection should therefore be individualized based on patient preference for immediate improvement or longevity.
trial registrationClinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2500106800.
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.