Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Poly-L-Lactic Acid Combined With CO
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. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Minimally invasive interventions for atrophic acne scars: a PubMed/PMC-based systematic evidence review and exploratory network meta-analysis toward phenotype-guided interpretation.Frontiers in surgery · 2026Pooled it
- Hyaluronic Acid vs Poly-L-Lactic Acid for the Treatment of Upper-Eyelid Hollowing: A Prospective Cohort Study.Aesthetic surgery journal. Open forum · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe treatment of acne scars has always been challenging. In the past, its gold standard treatment was carbon dioxide (CO
aimsTo determine the safety and effectiveness of PLLA (Loviselle) combined with a CO
methodsIn this study, 60 patients were randomly divided into two groups, with 30 patients in each group. Group A received only CO
resultsThere were statistically significant differences in the Quantitative Global Scarring Grading System (GSS) scores between the two groups before and after treatment. Group B had lower GSS scores than Group A. In the treatment of different types of acne scars using the Acne Scar Rating Scale, the improvement in rolling scars was greater than that in boxcar scars, and both were greater than those in ice-pick scars. Whether evaluated by independent physicians' assessment of treatment improvement or patients' satisfaction questionnaire, the combined treatment group showed better results than the single treatment group, and there were statistically significant differences between the two groups. Adverse reactions included transient redness, bruising, and pigmentation.
conclusionsThe combination of 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.