ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Early Intervention With an Ultrapulse CO
Article 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.
- Early Intervention With an Ultrapulse COJournal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
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
backgroundUltrapulse CO
aimThis retrospective study evaluated the clinical efficacy of ultrapulse CO PATIENTS/
methodsA total of 106 children with traumatic facial scars were divided into three groups according to when laser treatment was started post-procedure: 1 month (Group A), 3 months (Group B), and 6 months (Group C). Three months after two treatments, the therapeutic effects, adverse reactions, and satisfaction of the patients' families were compared between the three groups.
resultsAfter two treatments, the Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores were significantly lower than before treatment in all groups (p < 0.001). Pairwise comparisons demonstrated statistically significant differences between Groups A and B, and between Groups A and C (p < 0.001). Adverse reactions were not significantly different among the three groups (p > 0.05). At the follow-up after two treatments, significantly more patients were very satisfied in Group A than in Groups B and C (p < 0.05).
conclusionsEarly intervention with an ultrapulse 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.