ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Treatment of café-au-lait macules with picosecond and nanosecond 1064-nm nd: YAG laser: a retrospective study.
Article 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
To investigate the efficacy and safety of picosecond (PS) and nanosecond (NS) 1064-nm neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd: YAG) laser in treating Café-au-lait macules (CALMs). We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of patients with CALMs, who were treated with PS or NS 1064-nm lasers from January 2020 to January 2022. The efficacy was determined based on the before and after pictures by two independent investigators. The incidence of adverse events and recurrence were explored after treatments. A total of 116 patients (83 in the PS group and 33 in the NS group) were recruited. For subjects in the PS group, after 1-9 sessions, the lesion clearance was poor in 15 patients (18.1%), fair in 29 (34.9%), good in 14 (16.9%), and excellent in 25 (30.1%). In the NS group, after 1-7 sessions, the lesion clearance was poor, fair, good, and excellent in 7 (21.2%), 8 (24.2%), 13 (39.4%), and 5 (15.2%) patients, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in efficacy between the two lasers (p > 0.05). The incidence of complications (hyperpigmentation, hypopigmentation) in the PS group (16.9%) was numerically lower than in the NS group (24.2%) (p = 0.136). Among patients who responded well to the treatment, 10.3% of patients in the PS group experienced relapse, compared with 22.2% in the NS group (p = 0.926). The PS 1064-nm laser provided comparable efficacy and potentially fewer complications compared with the NS laser in treating CALMs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39883241What 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.