ArticleDermatology and therapy2022
Can Microneedle Fractional Radiofrequency System Treatment Impair the Skin Barrier Function in Chinese Patients? A Prospective Clinical Trial.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2022. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Short-term efficacy and safety of 5MHz fractional microneedle radiofrequency for facial rejuvenation: a prospective study.Annals of medicine · 2026Trial
- Combined Novel Microfocused Ultrasound and Microneedle Fractional Radiofrequency System for Multilayered Facial Rejuvenation: A Prospective, Randomized, and Split-Face Study.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Trial
- A Prospective Split-face Trial Evaluating Skin Recovery and Enhancement with Polynucleotide (Rejuran) Following Fractional Needle Radiofrequency Treatment.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2026Article
- Enhancement of Skin Barrier Function Using DYNAMiQ Technology: A Clinical Evaluation.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Radiofrequency Microneedling for Melasma: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Review
- Review of Applications of Microneedling in Melasma.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFacial cosmetic conditions can manifest as post-inflammatory erythema, scars, pigmentation, enlarged pores, skin laxity, and photoaging. The microneedle fractional radiofrequency system (MFRS) is a new device that combines radiofrequency and microneedles and has been widely used for skin rejuvenation. Since MFRS is an invasive technique, this study aimed to evaluate whether the skin barrier functions might be impaired by this treatment, revealed by skin sensitivity and exacerbation of melasma.
methodsTwenty patients with Fitzpatrick grades III-IV facial conditions (skin laxity with melasma, n = 9; post-inflammatory erythema and scars, n = 5; and enlarged pores, n = 6) and treated with MFRS were enrolled. Transepidermal water loss (TEWL, using Ultrascan UC22), skin sensitivity (ten-item Sensitive Scale, SS-10), melanin index (MI), melasma area and severity index (MASI), red areas (VISIA), and thickness and density of the epidermis and dermis on ultrasonography were compared between baseline and 6 months after all treatment sessions.
resultsTwenty patients completed a 6-month follow-up after two MFRS treatments. During days 1-3 post-treatment, the TEWL values gradually increased to the peak and decreased to baseline levels (BD) on day 7. There was no significant difference in TEWL compared with baseline in month (M) 1, M3, and M6. There were no significant changes in the thickness and density of the epidermis. Although the thickness and density of the dermis increased, there was no significant difference compared to baseline. There was no significant difference in the MI, MASI, and SS-10 score before and after MFRS treatment. After treatment with MFRS, the red area and scarring reduced significantly (p < .01), and no significant difference was observed in other patients.
conclusionsMFRS is a safe and effective treatment for facial cosmetic conditions. The skin barrier function is not impaired by MFRS treatment, since it does not cause skin sensitivity or melasma exacerbation.
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.