ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Debunking Myths on Hyaluronic Acid Injectable Gels in Clinical Practice.
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hyaluronic acid (HA)-based soft-tissue fillers are the most widely used injectables for nonsurgical facial rejuvenation, valued for their reversibility, versatility, and safety profile. Despite widespread use, misconceptions about HA gels have proliferated on social media and in clinical discourse, potentially affecting both healthcare professionals and patients. Methods: We conducted a narrative, nonsystematic review of the published literature, supplemented by clinical experience and expert opinion of 8 international specialists in aesthetic medicine. Published studies in English were retrieved from PubMed, with priority given to systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and controlled clinical trials. Evidence grading and quality assessment were applied where available. Results: Available evidence indicates that HA gels are biodegradable and temporary, with clinical effects generally lasting 4-18 months depending on product, technique, and patient factors. They are reversible through exogenous hyaluronidase injection. Current HA products cross-linked with 1,4-butanediol diglycidyl ether are not associated with toxicity at clinically used concentrations. The risk of gel migration or facial overfill syndrome is not inherent to the products but linked to inadequate anatomical knowledge, suboptimal injection technique, or inappropriate patient selection and counseling. HA gel treatment has also been associated with biostimulatory effects and improvements in patient quality of life. Conclusions: The weight of published evidence does not support common misconceptions about HA injectable gels. However, the evidence base is heterogeneous and includes studies of variable methodological quality. Practitioner education, thorough treatment planning, and shared decision-making between healthcare professionals and patients remain important for the safe and effective use of HA injectables.
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.