SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Autologous Fat Grafting Versus Facial Fillers in Facial Cosmesis: A Systematic review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
introductionAutologous fat grafting (AFG) and facial fillers specially Hyaluronic acid fillers (HA) are widely used for facial rejuvenation, yet their comparative benefits for patient satisfaction remain uncertain.
objectiveTo compare AFG and facial fillers, using patient satisfaction as the primary outcome.
designSystematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA-aligned).
methodsNine comparative studies (n = 805) were pooled with random-effects models (standardized mean difference, SMD). Heterogeneity (Q, I2) and small-study effects (Egger's) were assessed.
resultsAFG showed higher patient satisfaction than HA (SMD 0.91, 95% CI - 0.32 to 2.14), but results varied across studies (I2=97%); subgroup analyses were directionally consistent but did not explain variability. Egger's test suggested possible small-study effects (p = 0.15), though interpretation is limited with <10 studies.
conclusionsOn average, AFG provides higher satisfaction, likely due to its greater durability, while HA remains valuable for convenience and reversibility. Findings should be interpreted in light of between-study variability. Well-designed, standardized RCTs are needed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: 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 Table of Contents or online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42458045What 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.