↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Article Metrics

Hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: can adjunctive lidocaine improve patient satisfaction without decreasing efficacy or duration?

Overview of attention for article published in Patient preference and adherence, March 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
29 Mendeley
Title
Hyaluronic acid dermal fillers: can adjunctive lidocaine improve patient satisfaction without decreasing efficacy or duration?
Published in
Patient preference and adherence, March 2011
DOI 10.2147/ppa.s11251
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kimberly Cockerham, Smith

Abstract

Hyaluronic acid (HA) dermal fillers are the most widely used injectables to augment facial volume without surgery. HA dermal fillers are popular because of their ease of administration, predictable effectiveness, good safety profile, and quick patient recovery. The most common patient complaint is pain. Our goal is to review the current literature on HA fillers and compare outcomes with and without lidocaine. We found adjunctive lidocaine significantly decreases pain during injection and postinjection with corresponding increased patient satisfaction. The efficacy and safety profile appears unchanged. Rare complications with HA fillers and those associated with constituents of the product, contaminants, and lidocaine are reviewed. The corrective effects of HA fillers are temporary; repeat treatment is required to maintain results. Minimizing pain is crucial to optimize patient satisfaction.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 29 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 29 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 31%
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 4 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 7%
Other 4 14%
Unknown 3 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 55%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 7%
Social Sciences 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 29 October 2018.
All research outputs
#8,267,731
of 13,710,419 outputs
Outputs from Patient preference and adherence
#618
of 1,127 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#64,995
of 122,729 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Patient preference and adherence
#20
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,710,419 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,127 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% 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 122,729 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.