ArticleAesthetic surgery journal. Open forum2024
Energy-Based Medical Devices in Plastic Surgery: A Comparison of FDA-Approved Indications to Advertised Claims.
Article in Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum, 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.
- Laser and Energy-Based Devices in Aesthetic Practice: A 10-Year Single-Surgeon Review of Treatments, Complications, and Same-Practice Surgical Crossover.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lasers and energy-based devices are commonly employed in aesthetic medicine. In the United States, the FDA regulates lasers as medical devices, restricting marketing to approved indications and making off-label claims illegal. Despite this, no comprehensive analysis of off-label marketing prevalence exists. Objectives: The authors of this study aim to compare the FDA-approved indications for 2 popular aesthetic lasers to their online advertising claims. Additionally, they seek to educate aesthetic providers on the current regulatory restrictions surrounding off-label advertising. Methods: FDA-approved indications for 2 lasers-helium plasma dermal resurfacing and 2940 nm fractional erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet-were obtained from the publicly available Establishment Registration & Device Listings Database. Online advertisements regarding the capabilities of each laser were collected from practice websites in the United States. Results: Our analysis of 100 online claims for each laser revealed that more than half of the websites advertising helium plasma ( Conclusions: Despite FDA regulation of medical devices, online advertising regarding the indications and capabilities of popular medical lasers varies widely. Patients who seek information regarding aesthetic laser treatments may encounter inaccurate and differing claims for these treatments, potentially leading to false expectations and poor patient outcomes. Level of Evidence 4 Risk:
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.