ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Comparison of fractionated frequency-doubled 1,064/532 nm picosecond Nd:YAG lasers and non-ablative fractional 1,540 nm Er: glass in the treatment of facial atrophic scars: a randomized, split-face, double-blind trial.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ultra-low fluence 532 nm picosecond laser treatment for acne scars: OCT-observed epidermal vacuole-like changes-a case report.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Energy-Based Skin Rejuvenation: A Review of Mechanisms and Thermal Effects.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
- The Comparison of Efficacy and Safety Between General and Topical Anesthesia on Micro-Plasma Radiofrequency Treatment for Hypertrophic Scar: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2024Article
- Comparison of 1064-nm Nd:YAG picosecond laser using fractional micro-lens array vs. ablative fractional 2940-nm Er:YAG laser for the treatment of atrophic acne scar in Asians: a 20-week prospective, randomized, split-face, controlled pilot study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
- To evaluate the efficacy and safety of laser interventions for facial acne scars: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Article
- Controlling Inflammation Pre-Emptively or at the Time of Cutaneous Injury Optimises Outcome of Skin Scarring.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaser treatment of acne scars is common, but quality evidence on its efficacy is still needed. Our study aimed to compare picosecond laser and non-ablative fractional laser's efficacy and safety in treating acne atrophic scars.
methodsThis was a randomized, split-face double-blind trial recruiting patients with acne atrophic scars. Facial halves were randomly divided and treated with fractionated frequency-doubled 1,064/532 nm picosecond Nd:YAG laser or non-ablative fractional 1,540 nm Er: glass laser. ECCA score (echelle d'evaluation clinique des cicatrices d'acne) and skin flatness measured with a non-invasive phaseshift rapid in vivo measurement of skin (PRIMOS) system were evaluated one month after the last treatment.
resultsTwenty-two Fitzpatrick skin type IV patients were included in this study, with an average age of 29.68 years, an average duration of acne scars of 8.8 years. Picosecond laser impacted all acne scar types (before and after treatment; P=0.000 for all types, P<0.001 for V-type, P=0.002 for U-type, and P=0.021 for M-type) and more pronounced effect on ECCA score than non-ablative laser for V-type and U-type acne scars. After treatment, each treatment site's height was significantly lower than that before treatment (P=0.041) in the picosecond group but not in the non-ablative group (P=0.785). The reported erythema rate was higher in patients treated with a picosecond laser, while edema, exudation, purpura, pain, and long-term AEs were similar between the groups.
conclusionsFractionated frequency-doubled 1,064/532 nm Picosecond Nd: YAG laser showed better efficacy in treating acne atrophic scars than the alternative and provided satisfactory safety with added improvement in pores and the glossiness of the skin. REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR2100045982 (comparison of fractionated frequency-doubled 1,064/532 nm picosecond Nd: YAG lasers and nonablative fractional 1,540 nm Er: glass in the treatment of facial atrophic scar: a randomized, split-face, double-blind controlled trial).
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.