ReviewCureus2024
Shedding Light on Acne Scars: A Comprehensive Review of CO2 vs. Erbium-Doped Yttrium Aluminium Garnet (Er:YAG) Laser Therapy.
Review in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Exploring the role of laser therapy for stress urinary incontinence: a literature review.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Skin barrier repairing and anti-aging effects evaluation of a comprehensive topical regimen incorporating niacinamide, Pro-Xylane, and panthenol after PicoWay laser: a randomized controlled study.Lasers in medical science · 2026Trial
- Innovative Facial Contouring Using a Monopolar Radiofrequency Device with Continuous Water Cooling: An Integrated Clinical and Preclinical Study.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Trial
- Non-Surgical Correction of Facial Asymmetry: A Narrative Review of Non-Surgical Modalities and Clinical Case Examples.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Advancements in Acne Scar Treatment: Exploring Novel Therapies.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Review
- Long-term efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide (COAmerican journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Exploring New Frontiers: Innovations and Therapeutic Targets in Dermatology.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acne scars pose a significant cosmetic concern and can have a profound impact on individuals' self-esteem and quality of life. Laser therapy has emerged as a promising treatment modality for improving the appearance of acne scars by promoting collagen remodeling and tissue regeneration. This comprehensive review compares two commonly used laser modalities, CO2 and erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG), focusing on their mechanisms of action, efficacy, safety profiles, and patient outcomes. While CO2 lasers offer deeper tissue penetration and the potential for more significant improvement in severe acne scars, Er:YAG lasers provide a gentler approach with a lower risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation. Recommendations for clinical practice include tailoring treatment approaches to individual patient characteristics, educating patients about treatment expectations and post-treatment care, considering combination therapies for enhanced outcomes, and implementing regular follow-up care. Areas for further research include long-term outcome studies, investigation of laser therapy in ethnically diverse populations, exploration of combination therapies, and evaluation of emerging laser technologies. This review aims to provide clinicians and patients with valuable insights to inform treatment decisions and optimize outcomes in managing acne scars.
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.