ReviewEuropean burn journal2023
Laser, Intense Pulsed Light, and Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Burn Scarring: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in European burn journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuromodulation strategies in postburn care for pain rehabilitation and scar remodelling.Communications medicine · 2026Review
- Picosecond Nd:YAG versus Fractional COPlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Burns and scarring are considered some of the greatest problems in public health because of their frequent occurrence. Today, photo-electric technology shows promising results in the treatment of burn scars. Over the years, more clinical trials and more technologies for scarring have emerged. The aim of this study was to determine better timing and methods of photo-electric therapy for burn scars. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023397244), following the PRISMA statement, and was carried out in concordance with the PRISMA checklist. In October 2022, we searched PubMed.gov, Embase, and the Cochrane library (1980-present) for published studies related to the photo-electric treatment of burn scars. Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias among the studies included, and carried out NIH assessments to assess the certainty of the evidence. A third review author arbitrated any disagreements. Our research included 39 studies. We found evidence suggesting that photo-electric therapy between six months and one year offers significantly better outcomes than treatment of scarring after one year. The evidence also suggests the use of IPL for the treatment of early burn scarring. However, it is important to emphasize that the scientific evidence remains insufficient. We need more clinical trials of higher quality and with less heterogeneity to confirm our results.
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.