SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024
Safety and Effectiveness of Laser or Intense Pulsed Light Treatment for Early Surgical Scar: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Photobiomodulation as Medicine: Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Acute Tissue Injury or Sport Performance Recovery.Journal of functional morphology and kinesiology · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of laser or intense pulsed light therapy for early treatment of surgical scar.
methodsA literature search was conducted for relevant prospective, randomized controlled trials published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang Database, and VTTMS between January 2006 and January 2022. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist was used to extract literature data. The risk of bias was assessed by RevMan. Safety was assessed based on the presence of serious adverse reactions (blisters, infections, burns above the second degree), while effectiveness was assessed using the Vancouver Score Scale.
results1512 related articles were preliminarily retrieved, including 1211 English articles and 301 Chinese articles. According to the inclusion criteria and exclusion criteria, 12 articles were selected for this analysis. In total, 475 patients were included (laser group, 238; control group, 236). All studies confirmed that the laser group was superior to the control group. In the subgroup analysis of 7 articles, the standardized mean difference was 1.99 (P = 0.0001).
conclusionsThis meta-analysis demonstrates that laser or intense pulsed light therapy is a safe and effective approach for early surgical scar treatment, resulting in improved scar appearance and minimal adverse reactions. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
37620564What 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.