ReviewCureus2026
Combination of Technologies in Body Contouring: Evidence Mapping and a Decision-Making Algorithm.
Review in Cureus, 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
Body contouring has evolved from a mainly surgical discipline into a multimodal field integrating suction lipectomy, energy-based devices (EBDs), pharmacologic adjuncts, and electromagnetic muscle stimulation. Applying several technologies to the same patient, sequentially or simultaneously, has outpaced the comparative evidence needed to guide their use, leaving surgeons without a structured framework for indication. This narrative review appraises the evidence by tissue target, adipose reduction, cutaneous retraction, and muscle definition, profiles each contemporary technology, and proposes a pragmatic decision-making algorithm anchored in the patient's clinical profile rather than a device hierarchy. Surgical-energy pairings, chiefly radiofrequency-assisted and helium plasma-assisted liposuction, show the most consistent additive skin retraction with acceptable safety. Non-invasive pairings, such as cryolipolysis with high-intensity focused electromagnetic (HIFEM) stimulation and synchronized radiofrequency-HIFEM, produce measurable but modest gains in fat and muscle tone. Pharmacologic adjuncts occupy a narrow niche. Separately, the growing population reshaped by glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, presenting skin redundancy with disproportionate lean-mass loss, is emerging as a distinct candidate in whom excision remains primary and muscle-directed therapy gains a physiological rationale. Heterogeneous outcome metrics, a predominance of industry-sponsored series, and the absence of standardized sequencing protocols remain the principal limitations. Technologies are best paired through complementary tissue targets rather than redundant addition; the proposed algorithm stratifies candidates by adipose excess, cutaneous laxity, muscle tone, and scar tolerance to support a rational, individualized choice among monotherapy, sequential non-invasive strategies, and surgical-plus-EBD approaches.
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.