Current Status and Perception of Biostimulators in China: A Cross-Sectional Study on Medical Professionals and Patients.

Background: Biostimulators were predominantly used for natural aesthetic outcomes, with comparatively insufficient local clinical and basic research data relative to global standards.

Objective: To assess the current application and perceptions of biostimulators among medical professionals and patients in China, providing data to guide clinical practice.

Methods: A cross-sectional study employing convenience sampling was conducted. Questionnaires were distributed to aesthetic medical professionals and patients with biostimulator experience. Physician surveys (53 items, including single-choice, multiple-choice, ranking, and open-ended questions) were collected offline between November 2024 (n=125). Patient surveys (11 items) were simultaneously administered offline (n=232). Descriptive statistics were analyzed using SPSS 22.0, with absolute numbers and percentages (%) reported. The ranking questions were analyzed using the reverse scoring method.

Results: Biostimulators were widely applied for natural aesthetic outcomes (physicians: 84.0%; patients: 67.67%), particularly in facial treatments. Safety concerns (physicians: 55.56%; patients: 69.4%) and demands for robust preclinical and clinical evidence were prioritized. Participants also emphasized the need for standardized treatment protocols (physicians: 37.6%). Gender-specific preferences were observed, with males prioritizing contour definition and females favoring tightness and lifting. However, 40.0% of physicians expressed dissatisfaction with duration of lasting effect, while 39.2% desired enhanced efficacy. Additionally, 19.2%, 43.2%, and 14.4% of physicians reported dissatisfaction with pre-mixing protocols, storage stability, and post-injection massage techniques, respectively, indicating a need for product optimization.

Conclusion: Biostimulators are increasingly utilized for their natural aesthetic outcomes. Comprehensive preclinical data and reliable clinical evidence are critical for product selection. We advocate for collaborative efforts among manufacturers, physicians, and research professionals to develop detailed clinical guidelines and standardized training programs, thereby improving satisfaction among healthcare providers and patients alike.

Level of evidence v: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .