Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Comparison of Efficacy and Willingness to a 5% Gluconolactone-Based Topical Serum and Intense Pulsed Light in Mild Erythema of Rosacea: A Paired Control Study.
Trial report in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionMild erythema is a common affliction of rosacea. Many methods including drugs and phototherapy (e.g., Intense Pulse Light, IPL) have been tried to alleviate symptoms. Topical applications for enhancing moisturization have also been thought to be of some benefit. In this study, the improvement of erythema and skin physiology parameters were assessed after a topical serum (5% gluconolactone-based serum) usage or a single IPL treatment, and the differences in improvement between the two groups were compared. The treatment willingness of the subjects was also performed.
methodsIn this study, 200 subjects with mild erythema were enrolled; 100 of them were treated with topical serum (TS) for 30 consecutive days and the other 100 for a single IPL treatment. Facial images, local skin images, and physiological measurements were collected before and after treatment, to assess erythema (CEA), overall facial condition (VAS), and other skin physiology parameters (e.g., pore, skin tone, and sebum). Based on the questionnaire, the treatment willingness and satisfaction of the subjects were collected.
resultsImprovement on erythema, overall facial condition, and skin physiology parameters were observed in two groups. Both subjective assessments and measurements showed greater efficacy in erythema reduction, overall facial condition improvement, and sebum reduction in the IPL group (p < 0.05). Pores and skin tone improvement were comparable in TS and IPL groups. Similarly, subjects with certain erythema improvement in both groups were satisfied with their choice of treatment, in which possible side effects, cost, and duration of the treatment somewhat influence their treatment decisions.
conclusionsTopical serum that focuses on redness reduction and moisturization and IPL can improve erythema and skin physiological indicators. IPL is more capable of improving the overall facial appearance. By fully understanding the patient's facial condition and treatment influence, medical practitioners determine the appropriate treatment.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: ChiCTR2400087665.
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.