ReviewJPRAS open2026
Beyond the needle: psychosocial and quality-of-life outcomes following facial aesthetic injectable treatments.
Review in JPRAS 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Facial aesthetic injectables are commonly discussed through an anatomic and cosmetic lens. However, patients often seek treatment for reasons that exceed physical correction or enhancement, including confidence, social functioning, self-perception, and appearance-related distress. Objective: To identify and critically appraise evidence evaluating psychological, social, and quality-of-life outcomes following single-modality, mixed/comparative, and multimodal facial aesthetic injectable treatments. Methods: An evidence-based literature review was performed using PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library from January 2006 through June 2026. Eligible studies included adults undergoing facial aesthetic injectable treatments with botulinum toxin, hyaluronic acid fillers, biostimulatory or hybrid injectable fillers, platelet-rich plasma, polynucleotides/PDRN, or exosome-based injectables. Studies reporting psychological, social, self-esteem, appearance-related distress, social-perception, or quality-of-life outcomes were included. Studies were categorized by treatment modality and appraised using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Levels of Evidence. Results: Thirty-one studies were included. Facial aesthetic injectables were generally associated with improvements in psychological, social, self-perception, appearance-related distress, social-perception, and quality-of-life outcomes. The strongest evidence was identified for single-modality botulinum toxin A, largely because of randomized controlled trials. Evidence for hyaluronic acid fillers, mixed/comparative injectable approaches, and multimodal treatments was generally positive but more heterogeneous. Conclusions: Facial aesthetic injectables are associated with improvements in patient-reported psychosocial and quality-of-life outcomes, although the evidence remains heterogeneous. Emerging data also suggest favourable effects on observer-rated social perception. The proposed MOTIVE framework provides a pragmatic structure for integrating validated patient-reported outcome measures into routine aesthetic practice and warrants prospective evaluation.
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.