ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2025
One-Year Follow-Up of Acne Vulgaris Patients Treated With Nonablative Monopolar Radiofrequency: Efficacy and Safety Assessment.
Article in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundModerate-to-severe acne vulgaris (AV) remains a therapeutic challenge, often demonstrating resistance to standard interventions, including topical agents, oral antibiotics, and systemic retinoids. Nonablative monopolar radiofrequency (NMRF) offers a promising alternative by delivering controlled dermal heating without epidermal disruption. Initial findings from the authors demonstrated significant reductions in inflammatory lesion counts and sebum production following two NMRF sessions administered 4 weeks apart, with results sustained up to 6 months. This updated study extends the evaluation to include additional clinical assessments at 9- and 12-month posttreatment, providing further insights into the long-term efficacy and safety of this modality.
objectiveTo evaluate the extended efficacy and safety of NMRF therapy in the management of moderate-to-severe AV, incorporating follow-up assessments at 9- and 12-month posttreatment.
methodsThe study included 20 participants with moderate-to-severe AV who had been previously enrolled in the authors' initial investigation. All participants underwent two NMRF sessions, spaced 4 weeks apart, as per the original protocol. Follow-up assessments were conducted at 9- and 12-month posttreatment. Lesions were categorized as inflammatory (papules, pustules, nodules, cysts) or noninflammatory (comedones). Sebum production was measured quantitatively using a Sebumeter at each follow-up visit. Patient-reported outcomes, including perceived improvement and satisfaction, were also documented.
resultsOf the initial 20 participants, 11 completed the 12-month follow-up. Clinical assessments revealed statistically significant reductions in both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesion counts, with the most substantial decreases observed in papules, pustules, nodules, and cysts. Sebum levels continued to decline consistently over the extended follow-up period. Patient satisfaction scores remained high at both time points, and no significant adverse effects were reported, reinforcing the favorable safety and tolerability profile of NMRF therapy.
conclusionNMRF is a safe, effective, and minimally invasive treatment for moderate-to-severe AV. The 1-year follow-up data highlight its potential as a long-term treatment option, demonstrating sustained reductions in lesion counts and sebum production following a two-session course.
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.