SynthesisJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Radiofrequency Microneedling for Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis 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 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.
- Improvement of signs of vulvovaginal chronic graft-versus-host disease and genital syndrome of menopause with non-ablative radiofrequency therapy.Bone marrow transplantation · 2026Article
- Clinical Effects and Safety of Radiofrequency Microneedling for the Management of Melasma: A Retrospective Study.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiofrequency microneedling (RFMN) is a prominent minimally invasive treatment for facial rejuvenation. While individual studies report positive outcomes, a comprehensive synthesis of evidence across efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction is lacking.
objectivesTo synthesize evidence on the aesthetic, safety, tolerability, and psychological outcomes of RFMN for facial rejuvenation.
methodsWe conducted this systematic review in accordance with PRISMA and JBI guidelines. We systematically searched four electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, LILACS) for studies published between 2015 and 2025. We included 22 studies. We assessed risk of bias using a JBI tool and conducted a thematic synthesis of aesthetic outcomes, patient satisfaction, and safety. We evaluated confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach.
resultsOur synthesis of 20 studies (558 participants) found that RFMN treatments consistently improved aesthetic outcomes, with significant improvements in skin texture and tightening supported by high Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale scores. We found a favorable safety profile, where adverse events were predominantly mild and transient (erythema and edema were most common), and no serious complications were reported. Pain was typically mild to moderate and well-tolerated. Patient satisfaction was remarkably high, with most studies reporting rates exceeding 90%, which was strongly correlated with the procedure's efficacy and minimal downtime.
conclusionThe synthesis of evidence indicates that RFMN is an effective and well-tolerated intervention for facial rejuvenation, characterized by robust clinical outcomes and exceptionally high patient satisfaction. These findings solidify its role as a cornerstone treatment in modern aesthetic practice.
trial registrationPROSPERO Registration number: CRD420251152380.
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.