Nonsurgical Medical Aesthetics and Patient Quality of Life: An Umbrella Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nonsurgical cosmetic facial procedures have become popular treatment options for individuals seeking aesthetic improvements. Despite a breadth of literature on patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes, there is a lack of information specific to changes in quality of life outcomes. The objective of this umbrella review is to report the effectiveness of nonsurgical facial aesthetic treatments on reported quality of life in cosmetic treatment-seeking patients. The authors also aim to identify gaps in the literature on measures of quality of life outside of patient satisfaction. The authors completed a comprehensive, systematic search of review articles across 6 databases, including Medline, CINAHL Plus, EMBASE, APA PsycINFO, Cochrane Reviews, and Google Scholar. They included review-level studies that examine the changes in quality of life measures following treatment. A critical appraisal was completed for each review article included. A total of 7 reviews were included. One review was of strong quality, 2 moderate, and 4 were weak. Several nonsurgical procedures were evaluated across reviews, including injectable neurotoxins, dermal fillers, and laser skin resurfacing. The majority of included studies reported increases in measures of quality of life, posttreatment in the same patient or compared with controls. The most commonly reported measure was psychological well-being, followed by self-perception. There was a lack of measures outside of improvements to aesthetics, including those specific to mental health (eg, depression). Overall, based on the studies on nonsurgical treatments, the authors report increases in overall quality of life. This conclusion should be interpreted with caution, as the majority of reviews included were of moderate-to-weak quality. A major gap in this literature includes mental health outcomes. Future research should focus on increasing the rigor of reporting for systematic reviews.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it