Trial reportJournal of cosmetic dermatology2025
Efficacy of Non-Ablative Fractional Laser Combined With Tranexamic Acid in Melasma Treatment: A Randomized Split-Face Trial.
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 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.
- Efficacy of Non-Ablative Fractional Laser Combined With Tranexamic Acid in Melasma Treatment: A Randomized Split-Face Trial.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Trial
- International expert consensus on transdermal drug delivery technologies in dermatology.JAAD international · 2026Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe non-ablative fractionated erbium glass laser (NAFL) 1540 nm combined with topical tranexamic acid (TXA) is a novel therapeutic approach for melasma. However, the efficacy and safety of this combination remain controversial. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of NAFL combined with TXA in treating melasma.
methodsA randomized controlled trial with a split-face design was conducted on 27 participants with symmetric melasma. All participants applied 5% TXA topically twice daily to their entire face. One side of the face underwent three NAFL sessions combined with TXA at 4-week intervals, while the opposite side, treated with TXA alone, served as the control. Outcomes were assessed using the modified melasma area and severity index (m-MASI), physician global assessment (PGA), and participant satisfaction at the end of treatment, and at one and 3 months after the final laser session.
resultsBoth facial sides showed significant m-MASI score improvement at the end of treatment (p < 0.001); however, a significant recurrence was noted in both groups during follow-up. The reduction in m-MASI scores was significantly greater for the NAFL plus TXA group than for TXA alone at the end of treatment (p = 0.029). However, no significant difference was observed between the groups at the 1- and 3-month follow-ups (p = 0.33 and 0.31, respectively). NAFL plus TXA led to significantly better PGA scores at Week 12 (p < 0.001), but this improvement was not sustained during follow-up (p = 0.06 and 0.07, respectively). Participant satisfaction was consistently higher in the NAFL plus TXA group (p = 0.001).
conclusionsThe combination of NAFL and topical TXA provides significant short-term clinical benefits in treating melasma, likely by enhancing TXA penetration into target tissues and improving pigmentary clearance. However, its efficacy diminishes over time due to the inevitable recurrence of melasma, necessitating further investigation into long-term maintenance strategies.
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.