ArticleAesthetic plastic surgery2025
Analysis of the Electromagnetic Radiation Emitted by Cosmetic Laser and Light Equipment.
Article in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEquipment using lasers and light as energy sources has been widely used in the field of cosmetic therapies. However, there has been no research investigating the safety of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) emitted by such aesthetic devices. Our study measured four equipment to evaluate the EMR exposure level.
methodsM22, PicoWay, RevLite, and Encore were measured in this study. Each of the equipment in both operating and standby modes was measured using two hand-held devices. The results were statistically analysed by R.
resultsThe EMR of all equipment in the operating mode was significantly higher than when the equipment was in the standby mode. The electric field intensity and the magnetic field intensity were significantly higher at the front of the equipment (the operator's position) than at the back side. The magnetic flux density at the back of the equipment was significantly higher than that at the front side. It is notable that the magnetic flux density on the back of the Encore, a fractional CO
conclusionsThe EMR emitted during operation by most commonly used cosmetic laser and light equipment is within safe limits. However, for the Encore, the magnetic flux density at the back surpasses the controlling limits, suggesting that during operation, we should avoid positioning the back of the device towards the operator and the patient. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE III: This journal requires that authors 37 assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full 38 description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, 39 please refer to the Table of Contents or the online 40 Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40681905What 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.