Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38760539›Full record

SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2024

Laser Therapy in Hypertrophic and Keloid Scars: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Jose A Foppiani, Abdulrhman Khaity, Nada Mostafa Al-Dardery, Mohammed Tarek Hasan, Mohamed El-Samahy, Daniela Lee, Omar A Abdelwahab, Aya Ehab Abd-Alwahed, Huzifa Marwan Khitti, Khaled Albakri and 1 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Beyond the cut: a cross-sectional analysis of the long-term clinical and functional impact of cesarean section scars.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Jose A Foppiani *Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 110 Francis Street Suite 5A, Boston, USA.
Abdulrhman Khaity *Faculty of Medicine, Elrazi University, Khartoum, Sudan.
Nada Mostafa Al-DarderyFaculty of Medicine, Fayoum University, Fayoum, Egypt.
Mohammed Tarek HasanFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed El-SamahyFaculty of Medicine, Zagazig University, Zagazig, Egypt.
Daniela LeeDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 110 Francis Street Suite 5A, Boston, USA.
Omar A AbdelwahabFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Aya Ehab Abd-AlwahedFaculty of Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.
Huzifa Marwan KhittiFaculty of Dentistry, Sinai University, Sinai, Egypt.
Khaled AlbakriFaculty of Medicine, The Hashemite University, Zarqa, Jordan.
Samuel J LinDivision of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, 110 Francis Street Suite 5A, Boston, USA. samjlin@hotmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaser therapy has emerged as a promising treatment modality for improving the appearance and symptoms associated with hypertrophic and keloid scars. In this network meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of different laser types in treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.

methodsA comprehensive search of four databases was conducted to identify relevant studies published up until July 2023. Data were extracted from eligible studies and pooled as mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes and risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous data in a network meta-analysis (NMA) model, using R software.

resultsA total of 18 studies, comprising 550 patients, were included in the analysis. Pooling our data showed that fractional carbon dioxide (FCO2) plus 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) was superior to control in terms of Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS), pliability score, and thickness; [MD = - 5.97; 95% CI (- 7.30; - 4.65)], [MD = - 2.68; 95% CI (- 4.03; - 1.33)], [MD = - 2.22; 95% CI (- 3.13; - 1.31)], respectively. However, insignificant difference was observed among FCO2 plus 5-FU compared to control group in terms of erythema, vascularity, redness and perfusion, and pigmentation [MD = - 0.71; 95% CI (- 2.72; 1.30)], [MD = - 0.44; 95% CI (- 1.26; 0.38)], respectively.

conclusionOur NMA found that the FCO2 plus 5-FU was the most effective intervention in decreasing the VSS and thickness, while FCO2 plus CO2 was the most effective intervention in decreasing the pliability score. Further research is needed to determine the optimal laser parameters and long-term efficacy of laser therapy in hypertrophic and keloid scars. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: 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

Cicatrix, HypertrophicKeloidHumansLaser TherapyTreatment OutcomeHypertrophic scarsKeloid scarsLaser therapyNetwork meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID38760539

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.