↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Correction of tear trough deformity with a cohesive polydensified matrix hyaluronic acid: a case series

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
7 Mendeley
Title
Correction of tear trough deformity with a cohesive polydensified matrix hyaluronic acid: a case series
Published in
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, June 2015
DOI 10.2147/ccid.s84117
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jürgen Huber-Vorländer, Martin Kürten

Abstract

The tear trough or infraorbital hollow is a challenging area to treat, and only a few fillers are suitable for this delicate area. We report on a European case series of six subjects with mild to severe tear troughs who received treatment with cohesive polydensified matrix (CPM(®)) technology hyaluronic acid gel (Belotero(®) Balance). The product was injected as small depots (up to ten small boli 0.2 mL maximum each per side) at the supraperiosteal level along or below the orbital rim. Follow-up visits took place at 1, 3, 6, and 9 months after injection for independent evaluation of the clinical effect using the Merz Aesthetics Scale™ for infraorbital hollows and the Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale. Adverse events were also recorded. Mean hollowness scores were considerably improved compared with baseline in all subjects. In all women, the improvements remained throughout the 9-month study, with none reverting to their baseline score. Subjects' satisfaction with treatment was very high throughout the study, and all women stated that they would repeat treatment with the same product. The CPM hyaluronic acid gel was well tolerated. CPM hyaluronic acid gel is a safe and effective treatment for the tear trough area.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 7 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 7 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 43%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 14%
Professor 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 3 43%
Social Sciences 1 14%
Engineering 1 14%
Unknown 2 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 March 2016.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
#558
of 905 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,502
of 281,402 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology
#14
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 905 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.2. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,402 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.