Bloom, Jason D.

Importance Currently, there are no standardized outcome domains or measures in clinical trials for facial aging. Heterogeneity in outcome domains and measurement instruments across clinical trials creates difficulty in directly comparing interventions, determining superior therapies, and developing high-quality meta-analyses. Objective To develop a core outcome set (COS) of essential domains to be reported in clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of interventions for facial aging. Evidence Review PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched from September 2005 to September 2015. An updated search of the same databases was performed from September 2015 to February 2026. Studies were included if (1) they were randomized clinical trial or controlled clinical trial in design, (2) they assessed the efficacy or safety of an intervention for facial aging, (3) they were published in English, and (4) they involved human participants. Complementary sources, including patient interviews, were used to capture further relevant outcomes. Two rounds of Delphi surveys, followed by consensus meetings, were used to identify outcome domains considered most important by both patient and physician stakeholders. Findings The final COS consists of 6 outcome domains: (1) overall convenience of treatment; (2) time to return to normal work and social activity; (3) overall assessment of focused area of treatment (at the point in time when treatment is expected to provide peak benefit); (4) duration of treatment effect; (5) severity of persistent local or systemic adverse events, including pigmentary change, skin texture change, delayed healing, scarring, and serious adverse events; and (6) patient satisfaction with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance The 6 outcome domains identified through a Delphi consensus are recommended for reporting in future facial aging trials to ensure that outcomes that matter most to patients and clinicians are measured and that results are comparable across interventions.

ABSTRACTObjectivesTo achieve consensus among expert laser surgeons on standards for the prevention and management of adverse events from fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face.Materials and MethodsDelphi study with two rounds of ratings and revisions until consensus was achieved. The draft set of statements was developed by a steering committee based on expert clinical experience. This was followed by two rounds of rating and revisions completed by an expert panel, then a virtual consensus meeting. In both rounds, respondents rated the draft statements on a 9‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 9 = strongly agree) and optionally provided comments. The consensus meeting was supplemented by the results of a systematic review of the literature (from 2000 to 2023).ResultsTwo rounds of Delphi survey were completed by 34 participants across four countries. Represented specialties were dermatology, facial plastic surgery, plastic surgery, and oculoplastic surgery. The initial 105 statements from round 1 expanded to 112 in round 2, with 96 statements achieving consensus. These included possible adverse events (11 statements); absolute and relative contraindications to treatment (5 statements); preoperative care and antimicrobial prophylaxis precautions (16 statements); intraoperative precautions (17 statements); postoperative care (21 statements); monitoring for and management of infection (16 statements); management of pigmentation changes (6 statements); and management of scarring and incipient scarring (4 statements).ConclusionAn international consensus statement was developed for the prevention and management of complications associated with fully ablative laser resurfacing of the face. While expert practices vary, key factors for optimizing outcomes include careful patient selection, counseling, and meticulous pre‐ and postoperative care. Further research will improve our understanding of this treatment technique.