↓ Skip to main content

Assessment Tools for Facial Rejuvenation Treatment: A Review

Overview of attention for article published in Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
53 Mendeley
Title
Assessment Tools for Facial Rejuvenation Treatment: A Review
Published in
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, May 2016
DOI 10.1007/s00266-016-0640-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

B. Hersant, R. Abbou, M. SidAhmed-Mezi, J. P. Meningaud

Abstract

In the field of cosmetic medicine, patient satisfaction is an important and common indicator used to measure the efficacy of the treatment. However, it is insufficient to prove objectively that the benefit of the specific factors involved in the cosmetic outcomes. The practitioner should be aware of these assessment tools, in particular in case of demanding or litigious patients. The aim of this review was to establish a list and discuss the subjective and objective methods used to assess facial aesthetic rejuvenation treatments. A systematic literature search was performed using the Pubmed search engine. Studies published over the last 5 years, i.e. between January 2010 and January 2015 were considered for review. The following keywords were used: "aesthetic treatment", "facial rejuvenation", and "subjective evaluation" or "objective evaluation". Of the 446 articles identified by the search strategy, 47 articles focused specifically on facial rejuvenation and on the efficacy of aesthetic medical treatments were retrieved for review. Thirty-seven articles used quantitative methods to assess aesthetic treatment outcomes and only 12 used subjective methods. The different assessment methods were listed according to the tools used and treatment indications. This review will help in choosing adequate methods to assess facial rejuvenation medical treatment. It is important to combine these tools adequately to improve the assessment. There is no current consensus on assess facial rejuvenation treatments but we noted that objective assessment methods seem helpful. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 53 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 53 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 19%
Student > Master 10 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Other 5 9%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 11 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 49%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 12 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 June 2016.
All research outputs
#20,330,976
of 22,875,477 outputs
Outputs from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#999
of 1,219 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,111
of 312,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Aesthetic Plastic Surgery
#9
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,875,477 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,219 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,378 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.