ReviewAesthetic plastic surgery2024
A Network Meta-analysis to Explore the Effectiveness of the Different Treatment Modalities in Acne Scars.
Review 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 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of fractional carbon dioxide and erbium-based fractional lasers for atrophic acne scars: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Lasers in medical science · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMultiple treatments are used to treat acne scars, but comparing the effectiveness of these treatments have not been studied yet. This research aimed to conduct a complete analysis of the effectiveness of commonly used therapies in acne scars.
methodsPubMed, Embase, and Cochrane's Library (Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials) databases were searched through May 2023. We used patient satisfaction score as the primary outcome and Goodman Baron qualitative scar grading system as the secondary outcome to evaluate the effectiveness of different commonly used therapies for acne scarring, including laser, microneedling (MN), platelet-rich plasma (PRP), autologous fat grafting and combined therapies.
resultsHerein, 495 patients from 13 studies were included. Our results showed that PRP combined with laser was the most effective among therapies in treating acne scars. Ranking of effectiveness by the surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) curve for patient satisfaction score was as following: PRP + laser (96.2%) > laser (71.2%) > MN (45.5%) > MN + PRP (42.0%) > autologous fat grafting (24.5%) > PRP (20.5%). Additionally, ranking of effectiveness by the SUCRA curve for Goodman Baron qualitative scar grading system was as following: PRP + laser (86.3%) > laser (64.2%) > MN + PRP (54.2%) > MN (37.2%) > PRP (8.1%).
conclusionThis network meta-analysis indicated that the combined therapy of PRP and laser might be the most effective. Additionally, more high-quality randomized controlled trials are needed to verify our findings. 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
38316648What 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.