ArticleDermatology and therapy2020
Retrospective Study of Factors Affecting Efficacy of Therapy with Dye Pulsed Light for Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety comparison between pulsed dye laser and intense pulsed light configured with different wavelength bands in treating erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.Lasers in medical science · 2024Trial
- Spot size matters: enhancing rosacea treatment with pulsed-dye laser.Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- [Expert consensus on the clinical application of narrow-band intense pulsed light (2024 edition)].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionDye pulsed light (DPL) was proven to be effective at treating erythematous and telangiectatic skin disorders. However, there are limited data on the efficacy of DPL treatment for erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR), and researchers do not fully understand the factors that may affect the efficacy. Here, we performed a study to investigate the efficacy of DPL treatment for ETR and determine the factors affecting that efficacy.
methodsSixty-five patients with ETR underwent three treatment sessions with DPL at 4-week intervals and were followed up at 4 weeks after the last treatment session. Skin type, sex, age, lesion site, severity of erythema and telangiectasia, VISIA percentile ranking, clinical photographs and red area images were recorded at baseline. The post-treatment erythematous and telangiectatic scores and VISIA percentile rankings were recorded, and the effects of different personal and clinical factors on the efficacy were statistically analysed.
resultsThe erythema and telangiectasia scores and VISIA percentile rankings showed significant improvement after the DPL procedures (p < 0.01). With regard to erythema, treatment efficacy was not affected by any of the investigated variables, including pre-treatment erythema scores, skin type, pre-treatment VISIA percentile ranking, sex, age and lesion site (p > 0.05). With regard to telangiectasia, the treatment efficacy was greater for mild telangiectasia than for severe telangiectasia (odds ratio = 4.14, p < 0.05). There was no significant difference in treatment efficacy between the moderate and severe categories (odds ratio = 4.00, p > 0.05).
conclusionDPL is not the optimal procedure for treating severe telangiectasia in patients with ETR, whereas the efficacy of the treatment for erythema was not affected by the severity of the condition.
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.