SynthesisMedicine2020
Clinical comparison between Er: YAG and CO2 laser in treatment of oral tumorous lesions: A meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laser therapy decreases oral leukoplakia recurrence and boosts patient comfort: a network meta-analysis and systematic review.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- In Vivo Evaluation of Diode Laser Use in Lingual Frenectomy: A Histological and Histomorphometric Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Laser-Assisted Strategies for Alveolar Bone Preservation After Tooth Extraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- High-Energy Lasers in Oral Oncology: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Laser nasal surgery (Review).Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare clinical effect between Er: YAG and CO2 laser in treatment of oral tumorous lesions.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted from 2000 to 2019. The quality assessment was performed by the QUADAS-2 tool (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011). The clinical value of comparison between Er: YAG and CO2 laser was evaluated by using the pooled estimate of sensitivity and specificity. In addition, sensitivity analysis and bias analysis were applied to ensure the accuracy of the results.
resultsFinally, 268 patients were enrolled in 6 studies and ultimately met the eligibility criteria. The Er: YAG and CO2 groups were 141 and 127, respectively. The meta-analysis showed significant difference in success (risk ratio = 21.29, 95% confidence interval [1.09, 1.52], P = .002; P for Heterogeneity = .99, I = 0%) and time of surgery ((P of heterogeneity = .29, I = 20%, Z = 25.69, P of over effect < .00001). The recurrence and complications of CO2and Er: YAG groups had no difference.
conclusionEr: YAG laser had better effects than CO2 laser in eliminating oral tumorous lesions while it needed longer operation time than CO2 laser.
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.