Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Sequential Triple Therapy for Facial Inflammation: Prospective Evaluation of Facial Microneedle, Hydrolifting, and Intense Pulsed Light Therapy.
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 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.
- Sequential Triple Therapy for Facial Inflammation: Prospective Evaluation of Facial Microneedle, Hydrolifting, and Intense Pulsed Light Therapy.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFacial inflammation is a highly prevalent condition mediated by diverse etiologies, primarily manifested as facial redness, swelling, itching, pain, maculopapular rash, or even pustules. Conventional treatments such as topical or oral medications for anti-inflammatory, antibacterial, and immunomodulatory purposes have shown limitations, particularly in the slow resolution of symptoms. While standalone laser therapy or hydrolifting may provide relatively faster symptom relief, their efficacy remains insufficiently stable or durable.
objectiveThis prospective, comparative, and randomized clinical study aims to investigate the therapeutic effects of combining facial microneedling with intense pulse laser (IPL) and hydrolifting for facial inflammation.
methodsFrom January 2022 to January 2024, 114 patients with facial inflammation were enrolled and randomly allocated into one experimental group and two control groups. The experimental group received triple therapy, while the control groups received either hydrolifting alone or IPL monotherapy. Therapeutic outcomes were evaluated by comparing improvements in inflammatory area reduction, aesthetic indicators, Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS) scores, and incidence of adverse events post-treatment.
resultsBaseline characteristics showed no significant differences among the three groups before treatment. At 2 weeks, 3 months, and 6 months post-treatment, the experimental group demonstrated significantly better outcomes in inflammatory area reduction and GAIS scores compared to the control groups. Although aesthetic indicators improved in all groups, intergroup differences were not statistically significant. No significant differences in adverse event rates were observed among the groups.
conclusionThis prospective, controlled, and randomized clinical study demonstrates that microneedling-assisted IPL combined with hydrolifting yields superior and more sustained therapeutic efficacy in facial anti-inflammatory treatment.
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.