SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Combining Microneedling and Tranexamic Acid for Melasma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Q-Switched 1064 nm Fractional Laser with Intradermal Tranexamic Acid for Melasma: A Retrospective Propensity Score-Matched Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranexamic acid (TXA) has been explored as a potential treatment for melasma, and microneedling (MN) enhances transcutaneous drug delivery. To evaluate the clinical efficacy, patient satisfaction, and safety of microneedling combined with TXA (MN + TXA) in treating melasma compared to alternative treatment modalities.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Clinical improvement, patient satisfaction, and adverse events were analyzed using standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I tools.
resultsMN + TXA showed no significant improvement over other treatments in overall clinical outcomes. However, subgroup analysis revealed MN + TXA was significantly more effective than MN alone. Patient satisfaction did not significantly differ between MN + TXA and other treatments. The incidence of adverse events was similar across treatment groups.
conclusionCompared to other therapies, MN+TXA may be considered a potential option for melasma management. Future large-scale, standardized, multicenter trials directly are essential to confirm its efficacy, safety, and clinical utility. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
40555739What 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.