ArticleAnnals of dermatology2024
A Randomized, Split-Face, Comparative Study of a Combined Needle Radiofrequency/Intense Pulsed Light Device in Moderate-to-Severe Acne Patients.
Article in Annals of dermatology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07421804 (Clinical and Microbiological Evaluation of Topical Dutasteride as a Potential New Therapy of Facial Acne Vulgaris Versus the Triple Combination Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Clinical and Microbiological Evaluation of Topical Dutasteride as a Potential New Therapy of Facial Acne Vulgaris Versus the Triple Combination Therapy (Clindamycin Phosphate 1.2%, Benzoyl Peroxide 3.1%, and Adapalene 0.15% Gel)
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systematic review of vascular lasers for the treatment of inflammatory active acne vulgaris.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of the 1,320-nm Nd:YAG Laser in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris: A Retrospective Study.Annals of dermatology · 2026Article
- Emerging Innovations in Acne Management: A Focus on Non-Pharmacological Therapeutic Devices.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRadiofrequency (RF) and intense pulsed light (IPL) have been reported as efficient adjuvant treatment modalities for acne vulgaris.
objectiveWe sought to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of a combined needle RF and vacuum IPL device for acne treatment without the use of other conventional topical or oral agents.
methodsThis randomized, split-faced study was designed to include patients with moderate to severe acne vulgaris. Comedone extraction was performed on both parts of the face prior to laser treatment. One side of the face was treated with RF and IPL in 2-week intervals, while the other side was left untreated as a control. Two independent blinded investigators evaluated the patients for improvement using clinical photographs. We also assessed for possible adverse effects.
resultsThe study included 44 patients with acne vulgaris (27 men and 17 women). Their ages ranged from 19-39 years (average, 23 years). At the final 12-week follow-up visit, the acne reduction rate was 34.80% (±33.45%; range, 30.92%-19.03%) on the treated side and 13.76% (±37.58%; range, 28.26%-23.27%) in the control group compared to baseline, constituting a significant difference. The difference in reduction rate between the treated and control sides was 21.03% (±25.09%), with the treated side experiencing more significant improvement (
conclusionCombined treatment of needle RF and IPL could improve acne lesions.
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.