↓ Skip to main content

Combining Microfocused Ultrasound With Botulinum Toxin and Temporary and Semi-Permanent Dermal Fillers

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Combining Microfocused Ultrasound With Botulinum Toxin and Temporary and Semi-Permanent Dermal Fillers
Published in
Dermatologic Surgery, May 2016
DOI 10.1097/dss.0000000000000751
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

A microfocused ultrasound system with visualization (MFU-V) is currently indicated for use as a noninvasive dermatological aesthetic treatment to lift the eyebrows, lax submental and neck tissue, and improve lines and wrinkles of the décolleté. To determine the existence of any safety signals when combining MFU-V with botulinum toxin-A and/or semipermanent and temporary dermal fillers. A retrospective chart review was performed using subjects who received aesthetic treatments including incobotulinumtoxinA injection, cohesive polydensified matrix hyaluronic acid (CPM HA) dermal fillers, and calcium hydroxylapatite (CaHA) dermal fillers within 6 months of treatment with MFU-V in the same or different anatomic areas. All subjects (N = 101; 96 female; 25-70 year old) received MFU-V, 18% received incobotulinumtoxinA injections, and 81% were treated with CPM HA and/or CaHA fillers. Seven adverse events (7%) were reported: bruising/purpura (n = 4), swelling (n = 1), paresthesia (n = 1), and herpes simplex virus (HSV) outbreak (n = 1). Only the HSV outbreak was considered to be related to combined treatments. Although limited by relatively few subjects, the results of the present study suggest that the safety profile of MFU-V combined with other aesthetic products is consistent with the safety profiles of the individual treatments.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
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 demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 10%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Professor 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 10 16%
Unknown 20 33%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 27 44%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 8%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 24 39%
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 02 May 2016.
All research outputs
#22,760,732
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Dermatologic Surgery
#2,755
of 3,066 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#269,264
of 311,862 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dermatologic Surgery
#34
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 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 3,066 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. 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 311,862 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 39 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.