ArticleJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
A Novel Peel to Prevent Post-Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation After 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. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Moranoline-EnrichedInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Correction to "Novel Peel to Prevent Post-Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation After CO₂ Resurfacing for Acne Scars".Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
- A Novel Peel to Prevent Post-Inflammatory Hyperpigmentation After COJournal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAtrophic acne scars are a common dermatological concern, often requiring fractional carbon dioxide (CO
aimsThis study evaluates the efficacy of a novel pre- and post-treatment peel in reducing PIH following fractional CO
methodTwenty-nine patients underwent fractional CO
resultsThe peel-treated group had a lower median PIHASI score (0.0 [IQR: 0.0-0.2]) than the no-peel group (0.2 [IQR: 0.2-0.4]) at Week 6. The Mann-Whitney U test showed a statistically significant difference (z = 2.427, p = 0.015, exact p = 0.016). Re-epithelialization time was comparable (Day 6.4 in peel group vs. Day 6.2 in control group), and no significant difference was observed in acne scar improvement (scar reduction: 1.27 ± 0.59 vs. 1.36 ± 0.63, p = 0.694). No adverse events were reported.
conclusionThe novel peel effectively reduces PIH risk following fractional 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.