Trial reportLasers in medical science2025
Comparative efficacy and safety of the novel Picosecond Alexandrite Laser and the traditional combined Q-switched and long-pulse Nd: YAG lasers in melasma treatment: a randomized evaluator-blinded trial.
Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2025. 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.
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
Melasma significantly impacts life quality, and while various laser therapies show promise, rigorous comparative studies, especially between the novel Picosecond Alexandrite Laser (PSAL) and the traditional combined modality of Q-switched and Long-pulse Nd: YAG Lasers (QLNYL), are notably lacking. This study aims to fill this gap by evaluating the efficacy and safety of these modalities, providing insights into their comparative advantages for clinical practice. In a prospective, evaluator-blinded study, 40 participants with Fitzpatrick Skin Types (FST) III and IV underwent three treatment sessions at four-week intervals with either PSAL or QLNYL. Efficacy was primarily assessed by changes in Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) scores at baseline, 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks, along with patient satisfaction evaluations at the 12- and 24-week marks, and safety assessments conducted throughout the study. Both groups experienced significant reductions in MASI scores post-treatment. Overall, the improvement in MASI scores in the QLNYL group significantly surpassed that in the PSAL group (P = 0.010). Patient satisfaction was comparably high between groups, and no significant differences were noted in safety profiles. The PSAL group showed a slightly higher incidence of adverse reactions (not significant) and significantly higher pain scores (P = 0.018). Recurrence rates at the 24-week follow-up were 10.5% for PSAL and 0% for QLNYL, with no significant difference. Both PSAL and QLNYL proved effective in treating melasma, with the traditional combined modality of QLNYL demonstrating superior efficacy in FST III-IV. Safety profiles were similar comparable.
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.