Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32363110›Full record

ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2020

Laser Treatment in Hirsutism: An Update.

Yasmeen Jabeen Bhat, Safia Bashir, Nahida Nabi, Iffat Hassan

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Management of women with hirsutism in Kosovo.Postepy dermatologii i alergologii · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Cosmetic considerations after breast cancer treatment.Archives of dermatological research · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. A Narrative Review of Herbal Remedies for Managing Hirsutism.International journal of preventive medicine · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Methods to Overcome Poor Response and Challenges of Facial Laser Hair Reduction.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2022
    Review
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yasmeen Jabeen BhatDepartment of Dermatology, STD & Leprosy, Government Medical College, Srinagar, India.
Safia BashirDepartment of Dermatology, STD & Leprosy, Government Medical College, Srinagar, India.
Nahida NabiDepartment of Dermatology, STD & Leprosy, Government Medical College, Srinagar, India.
Iffat HassanDepartment of Dermatology, STD & Leprosy, Government Medical College, Srinagar, India.
Government Medical College · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Unwanted hair growth, which is a common aesthetic problem, has traditionally been treated using various techniques such as shaving, waxing, and epilation, but most of these provide only a temporary solution. Laser and light-based technology for hair removal has become one of the fastest growing procedures in modern cosmetic dermatology in the last decade. Clinical experience suggests that in the ideal subject with fair skin and dark hair, laser treatment can reduce hair growth significantly. This article reviews the various laser and light-based devices used for hair removal along with the various laser and patient parameters that affect the outcome of laser treatment for hair removal. Photoepilation, when properly used, offers clear advantages when compared with older, traditional techniques.

Indexed as

epilationhirsutismlaserphotothermolysis

Identifiers

PMID32363110
PMCPMC7190465
OpenAlexW3023958551

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.