ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Evaluation of the Therapeutic Efficacy of Moist Wound Healing After Fractional CO
Article in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fractional COClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Article
- Atrophic acne scar: a novel 4-step treatment approach using the ultra-pulse fractional COLasers in medical science · 2025Article
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
backgroundWith the popularization of laser therapy, an increasing number of patients are undergoing fractional CO
aimsThis study aimed to examine the clinical efficacy of moist wound healing after fractional CO PATIENTS/
methodsA total of 15 individuals volunteered to undergo fractional CO
resultsThe observation and control groups received different nursing interventions. The time to regression of erythema and swelling was significantly shorter in the observation group than in the control group. In addition, the scab formed at the wound site was thinner, and shedding was faster in the observation group than in the control group. The Clinical Erythema Assessment score of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group (p < 0.05). The wound healing time was 5.73 ± 0.70 days in the observation group and 7.73 ± 0.72 days in the control group, with the difference being statistically significant (p < 0.05). After 30 min and 12 h of nursing intervention, the Visual Analog Scale score of the observation group was significantly lower than that of the control group (p < 0.05). However, after 24 h of treatment, neither group showed significant pain. Both groups showed varying degrees of acne, pustules, and exudation, which subsided within 7 days. Furthermore, the control group had 2 cases of mild pigmentation, which resolved within 3 months. Neither group experienced adverse reactions such as skin infection, depigmentation, or scar formation.
conclusionMoist healing therapy can accelerate wound healing and reduce the duration of erythema and edema after fractional CO
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.