Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35107665›Full record

SynthesisLasers in medical science2022

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy, safety, and satisfaction between ablative and non-ablative lasers in facial and hand rejuvenation/resurfacing.

Farnoosh Seirafianpour, Arash Pour Mohammad, Yousef Moradi, Hojat Dehghanbanadaki, Parsa Panahi, Azadeh Goodarzi, Samaneh Mozafarpoor

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Efficacy of fractional COStem cell research & therapy · 2023
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Sequential Fractional COJournal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

7 authors.

Farnoosh SeirafianpourStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3794-6206
Arash Pour MohammadStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3064-4299
Yousef MoradiSocial Determinants of Health Research Center, Research Institute for Health Development, Kurdistan University of Medical Sciences, Sanandaj, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2936-5930
Hojat DehghanbanadakiStudents' Scientific Research Center, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1057-0309
Parsa PanahiStudent Research Committee, School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5280-6802
Azadeh GoodarziDepartment of Dermatology, Rasool Akram Medical Complex Clinical Research Development Center (RCRDC), School of Medicine, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. Azadeh_goodarzi1984@yahoo.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1249-4429
Samaneh MozafarpoorDepartment of Dermatology, Skin Diseases and Leishmaniasis Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9417-4295

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Skin aging inevitably begins from the very early days of life. The lasers used in skin rejuvenation are mainly of two types: ablative and non-ablative. This meta-analysis aimed at comparing ablative with non-ablative lasers in terms of their efficacy and safety in skin rejuvenation. Articles published by March 15, 2020 in Embase, Medline (PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane, and clinicalTrials.gov were searched. The inclusion criteria included randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) in English using ablative and non-ablative lasers and comparing their safety and efficiency in wrinkle improvement and photoaging therapy. Out of 1353 extracted articles, 11 were selected for qualitative synthesis and of these, 4 were quantitatively analyzed. Different modes of various lasers were implemented; the ablative lasers included Erbium: yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Er:YAG) and CO

Indexed as

Lasers, Solid-StateLaser TherapySkin AgingErbiumHumansPersonal SatisfactionRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRejuvenationTreatment OutcomeErbiumAblativeLaserNon-ablativeSkin rejuvenationSkin resurfacingSystematic review

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.