Trial reportLasers in medical science2013
Quantitative method for evaluation of aesthetic results after laser treatment for birthmarks.
Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment Outcome Measurement Instruments for Port Wine Stains: A Systematic Review of Their Measurement Properties.Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Pooled it
- In search for optimal schedule during long term treatment of port wine birthmarks - data from single center retrospective cohort study with a small prospective extension.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Usefulness of three-dimensional digital image analysis for objective evaluation of the efficacy of non-facial port-wine stain treatment with large spot 532 nm laser.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2020Article
- Can we predict the outcome of 595-nm wavelength pulsed dye laser therapy on capillary vascular malformations from the first beginning: a pilot study of efficacy co-related factors in 686 Chinese patients.Lasers in medical science · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Subjective assessment of results after laser treatment for birthmarks does not provide a validated method for clinicians. Previous reports concerning objective evaluation using L*a*b color coordinates were only partially successful due to difficulties in standardizing and comparing colors from pre- and posttreatment photographs. The study aimed to present a reliable and clinically applicable method of aesthetic result assessment after laser treatment for birthmarks. All 48 patients, included in the study, were treated for birthmarks on the face or neck using laser. Each pre- and posttreatment photograph was subjected to triple objective comparative assessment of color fading with use of a computer program, as well as to subjective evaluation by three core physicians and three laypeople. Objective analysis was based on an innovative method using combined L*a*b and hue saturation value color coordinates. Accuracy was higher between objective assessment with the computer program and subjective evaluation by core physicians than by laypeople. Repeatability of results was higher with the use of the computer program than among core physicians or among laypeople. In conclusion, our method may be considered for objective assessment of the results after laser treatment of vascular and pigmented birthmarks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.