Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31592824›Full record

Trial reportDermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.]2020

Safety and Efficacy of Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field Treatment of Sebaceous Gland Hyperplasia.

Girish S Munavalli, Brian D Zelickson, Mona M Selim, Suzanne L Kilmer, Thomas E Rohrer, James Newman, Lauren Jauregui, William A Knape, Edward Ebbers, Darrin Uecker and 1 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · hybridAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Dermatologic surgery : official publication for American Society for Dermatologic Surgery [et al.], 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03612570 (Evaluation of Nano-Pulse Stimulation), which is not on this map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03612570 nacompletednot on this map

Evaluation of Nano-Pulse Stimulation (NPS) in Sebaceous Hyperplasia

TypeinterventionalSponsorPulse Biosciences, Inc.Ran2018 to 2018Enrolled72ConditionsSkin Lesion, Skin Abnormalities, Sebaceous HyperplasiaArmsNano-Pulse Stimulation Device
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Management of Difficult-to-Treat Warts: Traditional and New Approaches.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2021
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Girish S MunavalliLaser & Vein Specialists, Charlotte, North Carolina.
Brian D ZelicksonZel Skin and Laser Specialists, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Mona M SelimZel Skin and Laser Specialists, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Suzanne L KilmerLaser & Skin Surgery Center of Northern California, Sacramento, California.
Thomas E RohrerSkin Care Physicians, Chestnut, Massachusetts.
James NewmanPremier Plastic Surgery, San Mateo, California.
Lauren JaureguiPulse Biosciences, Inc., Hayward, California.
William A KnapePulse Biosciences, Inc., Hayward, California.
Edward EbbersPulse Biosciences, Inc., Hayward, California.
Darrin UeckerPulse Biosciences, Inc., Hayward, California.
Richard NuccitelliPulse Biosciences, Inc., Hayward, California.
Pulse Biosciences (United States) · USDermatology, Laser & Vein Specialists of the Carolinas · USGoPro (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF) technology involves delivery of ultrashort pulses of electrical energy and is a nonthermal, drug-free technology that has demonstrated favorable effects on cellular structures of the dermis and epidermis.

objectiveDetermine the tolerability and effectiveness of nsPEF treatment of sebaceous gland hyperplasia (SGH).

methodsThis study was a prospective, randomized, open-label, multisite, nonsignificant risk trial in which each subject served as their own control. After injection of local anesthetic, high-intensity, ultrashort pulses of electrical energy were used to treat 72 subjects resulting in a total of 222 treated lesions. Subjects returned for 3 to 4 follow-up evaluations with photographs.

resultsAt the final study visit, 99.6% of treated SGH lesions were rated clear or mostly clear and 79.3% of the subjects were satisfied or mostly satisfied with the outcome. At 60 days after nsPEF treatment, 55% of the lesions were judged to have no hyperpigmentation and 31% exhibited mild post-treatment hyperpigmentation. At the last observation for all lesions, 32% of the 222 lesions were noted as having slight volume loss.

conclusionNanosecond pulsed electric field procedure is well tolerated and is very effective in the removal of SGHs.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03612570.

Indexed as

AdultAgedElectric Stimulation TherapyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansHyperplasiaMaleMiddle AgedPhotographyProspective StudiesSebaceous GlandsSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID31592824
PMCPMC7266004
OpenAlexW2979716593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.