Trial reportLasers in medical science2022
Efficacy and safety of 1565-nm non-ablative fractional laser versus long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser in treating enlarged facial pores.
Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05360043 (Efficacy and Safety of 1565-nm Non-ablative Fractional Laser Versus Long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Efficacy and Safety of 1565-nm Non-ablative Fractional Laser Versus Long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG Laser in the Treatment of Enlarged Facial Pores
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prospective, Split-Face Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing Non-ablative Fractional Laser for Periorbital Photoaging in Different Age Groups.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Trial
- Comparative analysis of erbium: glass 1550 nm and combined erbium: YAG & Nd: YAG lasers for perioral rejuvenation: a prospective study.Lasers in medical science · 2025Trial
- Comparison of the 1064-nm picosecond laser with fractionated microlens array and 1565-nm non-ablative fractional laser for the treatment of enlarged pores: a randomized, split-face, controlled trial.Lasers in medical science · 2024Trial
- Fractional COLasers in medical science · 2023Trial
- Randomized Clinical Study of Laser-Assisted Delivery of Exosome Boosters for Postoperative Facial Scars and Facial Rejuvenation.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Decades of Scientific Data and Global Media Reporting on Complications in Non-surgical Aesthetic Treatments for a Transparent Safety Profile: Kissing Snow White Awake.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- High-powered 675-nm laser: Safety and efficacy in clinical evaluation and in vitro evidence for different skin disorders.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Facial pores are visible openings of pilosebaceous follicles, and they are one of the major factors influencing facial skin appearance. This article aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of 1565-nm non-ablative fractional laser (NAFL) and long-pulsed 1064-nm Nd:YAG laser (LPNY) in treating enlarged facial pores. All subjects were treated with NAFL on their left faces and LPNY on their right. Five treatments were administered at 2-week intervals, with one follow-up session 2 months after the final treatment. Treatment efficacy was evaluated by subjective (pore improvement and subject satisfaction ratings) assessments and objective (pore number) assessments. At each appointment, any side effects or complications were recorded to evaluate the safety of the two lasers. A total of 18 individuals participated in this study. At the 2-month follow-up, NAFL and LPNY sides had significant reduction in pores (p < 0.0001 and p < 0.0001, respectively). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean number of pore reductions on either side (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in pore improvement ratings and satisfaction ratings between the two sides (p > 0.05 and p > 0.05, respectively). Both lasers showed minimal side effects. Both lasers effectively treated enlarged facial pores and were well tolerated. The side effects of the 1064-nm LPNY were less severe than those of the 1565-nm NAFL. ClinicalTrial.gov Identifier: NCT05360043.
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.