Trial reportLasers in medical science2025
Role of photobiomodulation application frequency in facial rejuvenation: randomized, sham-controlled, double-blind, clinical 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 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.
- Efficacy and Safety of At-Home Light-Emitting Diode Photobiomodulation for Facial Rejuvenation: A Systematic Review.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Article
- A 7-Week, Open-Label Study Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of 415-nm/633-nm Phototherapy for Treating Mild-to-Moderate Acne in Adolescents and Adults.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The present study investigated the effects of different photobiomodulation application frequencies on facial rejuvenation. Ninety-five women 45 to 60 years of age participated in the study. A red LED mask (660 ± 10 nm, 6.4 mW/cm², 8.05 J/cm², 5.02 mW, 21 min) was used, with the analysis of two different time intervals between applications. Group 1 received three weekly applications and Group 2 received two weekly applications for four weeks (total: 12 and eight sessions, respectively). The control group received sham photobiomodulation twice per week for four weeks. The participants were unaware of the allocation to the different groups. Three standardized photographs were taken before and after treatments for assessment using the Wrinkle Assessment Scale (WAS) by three specialists blinded to the allocation and period of the photograph. The Image J software was used by a researcher blinded to allocation and period of the photograph to measure wrinkles in the forehead, glabellar as well as right and left periorbital regions. Patient satisfaction was determined using the FACE-Q questionnaire. The data were analyzed statistically with the significance level set at 5% (p < 0.05). No significant differences among the groups were found with regards to the WAS. In the ImageJ assessment, significant reductions were found in the length of the glabellar and right periorbital wrinkles in the groups treated with photobiomodulation compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Participant satisfaction rates using FACE-Q were 79.6% and 73.4% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively, with significant differences in comparison to the control group (p = 0.001 and p = 0.034, respectively). The quantity of PBM sessions did not significantly alter the positive results achieved in terms of the satisfaction of the participants with their facial esthetics or the photographic assessments performed 30 days after treatment. Thus, two weekly sessions seem to be sufficient for improving patient satisfaction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40167796What 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.