Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42620772›Full record

ArticleJPRAS open2026

Defining and measuring 'Lift' in soft tissue filler-based facial rejuvenation: a critical review and proposed framework.

Steven Harris, Alain Michon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JPRAS open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Steven HarrisHarris Clinic, 9 Fairlawn Avenue, London, UK.
Alain MichonProject Skin, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The term "lift" is among the most frequently used outcomes, technique names, and product descriptors in the soft tissue filler literature, yet it has no consensus operational definition, no agreed measurement standard, and no validated threshold for clinical significance. We undertook a structured narrative critique of how "lift" is operationalised in the peer-reviewed filler literature for hyaluronic acid, calcium hydroxylapatite, poly-l-lactic acid, polycaprolactone, and hybrid products, and compared reported effect sizes against the documented accuracy of the measurement modalities used. The term "lift" is operationalised in multiple categorically distinct ways across this corpus. All published quantitative measurements reflect changes at the cutaneous surface rather than independent tracking of deeper structures. Reported mm-magnitude effects are often similar in magnitude to, and in some cases substantially exceeded by the standard deviation of the measurement and the documented accuracy of the imaging modality. Dose-response analyses, where performed, demonstrate a non-monotonic rather than dose-dependent relationship between injected volume and measured displacement. Studies comparing multiple rater groups suggest that less independent raters may report larger improvements. No reviewed study reports modality accuracy alongside effect size or pre-specifies a clinically meaningful threshold. These observations do not establish that fillers do not produce lift; they establish that the construct of filler-mediated lift has not yet been operationalised with the precision its claims now require. We propose a five-standard framework toward an operational definition.

Indexed as

Aesthetic medicineConstruct validityLiftOperational definitionSoft tissue fillersSurface displacementThree-dimensional imaging

Identifiers

PMID42620772
PMCPMC13486982

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.