Heterogeneity in Clinical Outcomes Reporting in Minimally-Invasive Facial Rejuvenation: Is It Time for a Core Outcomes Set?

Abstract

Outcome measurement in aesthetic medicine is complicated by subjective definitions of beauty, psychosocial factors, and a lack of standardized assessment metrics. Outcome reporting heterogeneity limits physicians' ability to synthesize results from multiple studies. The purpose of this study was to identify the outcomes and outcome scales used in minimally-invasive facial rejuvenation clinical trials to determine the degree of outcome heterogeneity. A systematic review was conducted to identify all randomized control trials published in 2020-2025 focusing on non-operative or minimally-invasive facial and neck rejuvenation treatments. We identified outcome measurements reported in each study, including investigator assessment scales, patient-reported outcome scales, and objective outcomes and metrics. Our search identified 242 articles for inclusion. From these, we identified 79 investigator assessment scales, 69 patient-reported outcome scales, and 53 objective outcomes reported. No investigator-reported or patient-reported outcome was used in greater than 40% of trials, and within studies comparing the same treatment type applied to the same facial region, there existed substantial heterogeneity in definitions of treatment efficacy. Furthermore, differences in reported measures existed between regions and funding sources. There is substantial heterogeneity in outcomes reporting among facial rejuvenation studies. Clinicians, researchers, and industry stakeholders should strive to develop a core outcome set to ensure that meaningful and consistent outcomes are reported in all clinical trials.