ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Letter to Aesthetic and Psychosocial Impacts of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers in Patients with Retrognathic Profiles.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This Letter to the Editor provides a comment of de Almeida Silva L et al. "Aesthetic and Psychosocial Impacts of Hyaluronic Acid Fillers in Patients with Retrognathic Profiles." While the original study contributes to understanding the psychosocial effects of non-surgical enhancement techniques, several concerns warrant consideration. First, the absence of a control or comparator group undermines causal inference, as improvements in aesthetic satisfaction and self-esteem could stem from placebo effects or observer bias rather than the biological action of hyaluronic acid. The implementation of a randomized or sham-controlled design would strengthen the internal validity of similar future research. Second, the statistical approach relied heavily on p values without reference to minimal clinically important differences or correction for multiple testing, raising uncertainty about the clinical relevance of the reported improvements. Third, the narrow participant inclusion-limited to young female patients with mild retrognathia-restricts generalizability, potentially introducing self-selection bias in a population already motivated toward aesthetic enhancement. Lastly, the article could have provided a more nuanced discussion of ethical considerations, especially regarding informed consent, patient expectations, and the cumulative risks of repeated filler injections that only mask, rather than correct, underlying skeletal discrepancies.Level of Evidence IV This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
41491316What 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.