13.1. Analysis.

Comparison 13 Injectable fillers versus subcision, Outcome 1 Within‐individual studies.

Within‐individual studies
Study	Interventions	Summary Outcomes	Comment
Sage 2011	One side: Injectable filler using a natural source porcine collagen (NSPC) filler Other side: Subcision	Participant‐reported scar improvement (6 months): Participants rated subcision (3.9) higher than NSPC injectable filler (3.5) for global improvement (P = 0.12). Physician assessment of the overall aesthetic improvement revealed a higher mean score for global improvement with NSPC injectable filler (3.05) than with subcision (2.95) (P = 0.69). Participant‐reported adverse events (1 week): The most significant adverse effect reported was bruising in participants treated with subcision. Subcision had a higher incidence and mean severity of bruising (2.2) than NSPC injection (0.7) (P = 0.007) Participant‐reported adverse events (6 months): Participants rated lumpiness from subcision (mean 3.4) as better than NSPC injectable filler (mean 2.9) (P = 0.15). Investigator‐assessed adverse events (1 week): A higher mean severity of bruising with subcision (1.7) than with NSPC injection (1.1) (P = 0.09).	Sage 2011 did not assess the secondary outcomes ‘Participant satisfaction’, ‘Quality of life’ or ‘Post‐procedure down time'.