ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2022
To evaluate the efficacy and safety of laser interventions for facial acne scars: a systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Survey on the current status of photoaging in young Asian women and intervention effects of non-ablative bipolar radiofrequency combined with ablative fractional CO₂ laser: a retrospective study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Platelet rich plasma use for treatment of acne scars: an overview of systematic reviews.Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue · 2024Review
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
Background: There are numerous laser treatments for acne scars in clinical practice. However, there are no clinical studies comparing all laser methods to provide an evidence-based bias for clinicians to choose the best strategy. Therefore, this systematic review and network meta-analysis was conducted to explore the efficacy of different types of laser treatment on acne scars. This study can provide the most effective treatment for acne scars in clinical practice. Methods: The databases of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched from their inception to July 2022. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to assess the bias of the included original studies. Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to investigate the efficacy of laser treatment strategies in scar improvement, cure rate, and satisfaction. Results: As shown by the results, the top 3 treatment options for scar improvement were fractional carbon dioxide laser (FCL) + platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) [surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA): 0.699], 1064Nd (1,064-nm neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet picosecond laser) + 15%VC (Vitamin C; SUCRA: 0.675), and 1064Nd (SUCRA: 0.627). The standard mean difference (SMD) of FCL + PRP was -1.76 (95% CI: -3.49, -0.03), compared with that of FCL. The top 3 treatment options for improving cure rate were Er (Er:YAG laser treatment) + PRP (SUCRA: 0.873), FCL (SUCRA: 0.773), and FCL + 30% salicylic acid (30%SC) (SUCRA: 0.772). The RR of Er + PRP cure rate was 13.86 (95% CI: 1.79, 107.22), compared with non-laser radiofrequency therapy. Conclusions: The findings suggested that combined therapies should be used to treat acne scars. Er + PRP showed the highest cure rate of acne scar, followed by FCL + 30%SC or FCL monotherapy. FCL combined with PRP could improve acne scarring to the greatest extent, and 1064Nd combined with 15%VC can also exert a good effect. As for satisfaction, FCL monotherapy was the most satisfactory methods for patients, followed by PRP monotherapy. Therefore, Er + PRP and FCL + PRP can be used as the first choice for clinical treatment of acne scars. Additionally, using FCL alone is also an effective and elective treatment method due to its affordable cost and comfort.
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.