ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026
Injector Experience and Satisfaction with a Redesigned Syringe for Cohesive Polydensified Matrix Gels: A Non-Comparative Questionnaire-Based Study.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinician-reported evaluations of syringe injectability and handling during hyaluronic acid (HA) filler administration remain limited. Objective: To characterize experienced injectors' perceptions of the usability, handling, and safety-related features of a redesigned (Gen2) syringe for cohesive polydensified matrix (CPM) HA gels. Methods: In this retrospective, non-comparative analysis of a manufacturer-associated questionnaire evaluation, 17 experienced Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs), including nine manuscript authors, evaluated the Gen2 syringe following clinical use (n=12) or simulated use (n=5). The Gen2 syringe and CPM products were provided by the manufacturer. Participants completed a study-specific questionnaire reviewed for clarity, clinical relevance, and face validity and provided qualitative feedback regarding syringe ergonomics, handling, extrusion characteristics, injection control, and perceived safety-related features. No comparator syringe was evaluated. Questionnaire responses were summarized using descriptive statistics, with exact 95% confidence intervals calculated for selected proportions. Results: Injectors generally rated the evaluated syringe attributes favorably. The integrated Luer-lock was selected as a valuable design feature by 13/17 respondents (76.5%), followed by perceived lower extrusion force (11/17, 64.7%) and the concave thumb grip (9/17, 52.9%). Responses were predominantly favorable regarding perceived injection-volume accuracy and reduction in needle-detachment risk. Five of 17 respondents (29.4%) reported usability considerations, including scale orientation, syringe length, and resistance during rubber-bung removal. Conclusion: The redesigned syringe was rated favorably by this small, selected group of experienced injectors familiar with the legacy platform. These exploratory, perception-based findings should be interpreted in the context of the non-comparative design, sponsor-associated participant selection and use of a study-specific questionnaire developed for this evaluation. Comparative studies incorporating objective performance measures are warranted.
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.