Methods: A total of 10 dermatologists/aesthetic physicians served on the advisory board. A modified version of the Delphi method was used to arrive at consensus. Members accessed an online platform to review statements on skin quality criteria from their peers, including treatment and measurement options, and voted to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed. Statements that did not have agreement were modified and the members voted again. Consensus was defined as: strong consensus = greater than 95% agreement; consensus = 75% to 95% agreement; majority consent = 50% to 75% agreement; no consensus = less than 50% agreement.
Results: There was strong consensus that good skin quality is defined as healthy, youthful in appearance (appearing younger than a person's chronological age), undamaged skin and that skin quality can be described across all ethnicities by four emergent perceptual categories (EPCs): skin tone evenness, skin surface evenness, skin firmness, and skin glow. The EPCs can be affected by multiple tissue layers (ie, skin surface quality can stem from and be impacted by deep structures or tissues). This means that topical approaches may not be sufficient. Instead, improving skin quality EPCs can require a multilayer treatment strategy.
Conclusion: This global advisory board established strong consensus that skin quality can be described by four EPCs, which can help clinicians determine the appropriate treatment option(s) and the tissue or skin layer(s) to address. Skin quality is important to human health and wellbeing and patients' perception for the need for aesthetic treatment.
METHODS: Two different novel five-point photonumeric scales for the assessment of static and dynamic forehead lines were developed. Moreover, a photoguide was created, including subjects from both sexes, all age groups, and different Fitzpatrick skin types. A total of 11 raters from all over the world were involved in the digital validation, whereas four raters performed a live validation.
RESULTS: The Croma Static Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale showed almost perfect inter and intra-rater agreement in both the digital and the live setting with inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-0.89] in the first digital rating and 0.82 [95% CI: 0.78-0.86] in the second digital rating. The Croma Dynamic Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale showed almost perfect inter and intra-rater agreement in the digital setting with inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.83 [95% CI: 0.79-0.86] in the first digital rating and 0.80 [95% CI: 0.75-0.84] in the second rating and almost substantial agreement in the live setting.
CONCLUSIONS: The Croma Static Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale and the Croma Dynamic Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale have excellent inter and intra-rater agreements to be justifiably used in the clinical and study setting, both digitally and live across ethnic groups.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this investigation was to create and validate 5-point photo numeric scales which assess perioral lines and marionette lines.
METHODS: A medical team created two different novel 5-point photonumeric scale for the assessment of perioral lines and marionette lines. Eleven international raters were involved in the digital validation, while 4 raters performed a live validation.
RESULTS: For the Croma Static Perioral Lines-Assessment Scale digital inter-rater ICCs were 0.88 [95% CI: 0.85-0.91] in the first rating and 0.87 [0.83-0.90] in the second rating. The digital intra-rater ICCs were 0.90 [95% CI: 0.87-0.92]. In the live rating, the inter-rater ICCs were 0.89 [95% CI: 0.85-0.93] in the first rating and 0.91 [95% CI: 0.87-0.93] in the second rating with an intra-rater ICC of 0.91 [95% CI: 0.88-0.95]. For the Croma Marionette Lines-Assessment scale the digital rating inter-rater ICCs were 0.85 [95% CI: 0.81-0.89] in the first rating and 0.87 [95% CI: 0.84-0.90] in the second rating with an intra-rater ICC of 0.89 [95% CI: 0.88-0.91]. In the live rating, the inter-rater ICCs were 0.73 [95% CI: 0.54-0.83] in the first rating and 0.79 [95% CI: 0.65-0.87] in the second rating with an intra-rater ICC of 0.88 [95% CI: 0.83-0.94].
CONCLUSIONS: It is to be concluded that the Croma Static Perioral Lines-Assessment Scale and the Croma Marionette Lines-Assessment Scale have exceptional inter- and intra-rater agreements to be justifiably used in the clinical and study setting for all ethnic groups.
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this investigation was to create and validate 5-point photo numeric scales which assess horizontal necklines, platysmal bands and wrinkles in the décolleté.
METHODS: A medical team created 3 different novel 5-point photonumeric scale for the assessment of horizontal necklines, platysmal bands and décolleté wrinkling. Eleven international raters were involved in the digital validation, while 4 raters performed a live validation.
RESULTS: The Croma Horizontal Neck Line - Assessment Scale showed substantial inter-rater agreement and almost perfect intra-rater agreement in the digital and live validations. The Croma Platysmal Bands-Assessment Scale showed substantial intra-rater agreement in both, digital and live validations. For the décolleté, a static and a dynamic scale was created and validated. The Croma Static Décolleté Wrinkling-Assessment Scale showed substantial and almost perfect inter-rater agreement in the digital validation and live-validation, respectively, while the intra-rater agreement was in both almost perfect. The Croma Dynamic Décolleté Wrinkling-Assessment Scale showed almost perfect agreement in both validation settings for both, inter-and intra-rater agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: The Croma Horizontal Neck Line - Assessment Scale, the Croma Static and Dynamic Décolleté Wrinkling-Assessment Scales have sufficient inter and intrarater agreements to be justifiably used in the clinical and study setting.
Methods: An international panel of experts in the field of aesthetic medicine convened to develop guidelines on effective and safe injection technique when performing treatments with the CPM-HA range of soft-tissue fillers.
Results: Consensus members considered treatment indications in the upper, middle and lower face. Landmark deficiencies and anatomical considerations are described for each indication and consensus recommendations provided on the optimal product, injection depth and treatment technique. This is supplemented by the experts advice on avoidance of complications. Throughout, an evidence-based approach to selection of products and injection techniques is provided. The result is a fully tailored approach to a range of indications covering the full portfolio of CPM-HA products, including the newest addition for skin revitalization.
Conclusion: The recommendations in this consensus document are provided to assist clinicians in the selection of CPM-HA products, administration techniques and depths of injection with the aim of providing seamless and natural treatment results, enhanced safety and patient satisfaction.