ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Spot size matters: enhancing rosacea treatment with pulsed-dye laser.
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 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.
- Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed Dye Laser, Intense Pulsed Light and Radiofrequency Therapy in the Treatment of Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Could photobiomodulation be used for treatment of rosacea?Lasers in medical science · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The importance of spot size in pulsed dye lasers for treatment of rosacea is frequently undervalued. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of 7-mm and 10-mm spot sizes of a 595-nm pulsed dye laser for treating erythematotelangiectatic rosacea.Twenty participants with erythematotelangiectatic rosacea were enrolled and received three treatments at 4-week intervals. The left and right cheeks were treated with a circular beam with diameters of 7 mm and 10 mm, respectively. The pulse duration was 10 ms. Therapeutic energy was adjusted by 5-10% based on the immediate reaction after treatment. The skin type, sex, age, lesion site, erythema severity score, telangiectasia severity score, VISIA percentile score, and clinical photographs were recorded at baseline and at 4-week intervals thereafter. The clinical erythema (CEA) score, patient global assessment (PGA) scale score, visual analog scale (VAS) score, and adverse events were evaluated at 4-week intervals. Two physicians blindly evaluated the results.Significant improvements in CEA and telangiectasia scores, VISIA percentile score, and PGA scores were observed on both sides at 3 months, without significant differences between the left and right cheeks. Participant satisfaction with the right side (10 mm; 90%) was significantly higher than that with the left side (7 mm; 85%). The average pain score (VAS) on the left (4.85 ± 0.81) was significantly higher than that on the right (3.95 ± 1.00).This study demonstrated that a 10-mm-diameter therapeutic beam can safely improve rosacea symptoms. The 10-mm light spot was less painful than the 7-mm light spot and had the same therapeutic efficacy; therefore, it is the optimal choice for rosacea.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40175813What 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.