ReviewAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2026
Facelift Randomized Controlled Trials Compliance With CONSORT Checklist: A Systematic Review.
Review in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in facelift surgery remain few and variably reported; transparent, reproducible methods are essential to interpret efficacy and safety. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality and reporting standards of facelift RCTs using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and CONSORT-NPT guidelines, identifying patterns of adherence and areas for improvement. Methods: We conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review of RCTs evaluating facelift techniques or perioperative strategies. RCTs focusing on facelift techniques were included based on study design and relevance. Adherence to the CONSORT 2010 or CONSORT-NPT 2017 checklist was retrospectively assessed for each included study. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool, and evidence quality was appraised via GRADE. Results: Ten RCTs (n = 457; mean sample 46) met inclusion. Mean CONSORT adherence was 56%, with high for intervention description and statistical analysis (both 100%) but poor for tailored interventions (10%), trial registration (20%), and trial protocol (30%). Adherence showed weak correlations with journal impact factor ( Conclusions: Facelift RCTs show variable, often suboptimal reporting, leaving the evidence base thin despite rising demand. Strengthening trial quality requires field-wide pre-registration and protocol publication, validated outcome measures, and consistent CONSORT enforcement; a standardized minimum dataset and registry-based reporting would further bolster evidence for facial rejuvenation surgery. Level of Evidence 5 Therapeutic:
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.