ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Comparative Evaluation of High-Frequency Microneedling Using a Layering Technique Versus Conventional Technique for Facial Rejuvenation.
Article in Journal of cosmetic 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of high-frequency microneedling (HFM) using a layering technique versus conventional HFM for facial rejuvenation, with the Fitzpatrick Wrinkle and Laxity Classification Scale (FWCS) score at 3 months post-treatment as the primary endpoint.
methodsA prospective non-randomized controlled study was conducted on 30 patients undergoing facial rejuvenation at Changzhou TCM Hospital (January-December 2024), who were divided into two groups (n = 15 each). The conventional group received standard HFM, while the layered group received HFM with needle length, power, and pulse width adjusted for superficial, middle, and deep skin layers. The primary endpoint was the Fitzpatrick Wrinkle and Laxity Classification Scale (FWCS) score at 3 months post-treatment. Secondary endpoints included FWCS scores at 1 and 2 months, VISIA-derived skin texture/pore scores, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) scores, Cutometer skin rebound rate, and patient satisfaction. Assessments were performed pre-treatment and at 1, 2, and 3 months post-treatment. Statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS 22.0, with linear mixed-effects models for repeated measures, ordinal methods for GAIS, and Fisher's exact test for satisfaction.
resultsPre-treatment FWCS scores showed no significant difference (p > 0.05). At 1 month, the layering group showed a significantly greater FWCS score reduction (2.53 vs. 1.34, p < 0.05). FWCS scores remained significantly lower in the layering group at 2 and 3 months (p < 0.05). Skin texture improvement was significantly better maintained in the layering group at 2 and 3 months (p < 0.05). Pore improvement was significantly better in the layering group only at 3 months (p < 0.05). GAIS scores indicated significantly superior rejuvenation effects in the layering group (p < 0.001). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the layering group (93.33% vs. 60.00%, p < 0.05). No serious adverse reactions occurred; transient redness and mild discomfort resolved quickly in both groups.
conclusionThe HFM layering technique demonstrates superior efficacy over conventional HFM for facial rejuvenation, with more significant and sustained improvements in wrinkles, skin texture, pores, and elasticity, as well as higher patient satisfaction. Both techniques are safe, though the layered approach is associated with slightly longer downtime.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.