SynthesisLasers in medical science2025
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparison between lasers and other therapeutic modalities in skin rejuvenation and resurfacing with a focus on RCTs.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Facial laser complications (A Five Year Review).Lasers in medical science · 2026Pooled it
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
AIMS AND
objectivesThis systematic review and meta-analysis sought to compare the efficacy of lasers with other modalities in skin rejuvenation and resurfacing. Methodology: The database was thoroughly searched, and six articles meeting specific inclusion criteria were selected for meta-analysis. Inclusion criteria comprised studies that compared lasers with other methods, with four studies focusing on laser comparisons and two studies comparing more than two methods. The selected articles encompassed two randomized split-face trials, one side-by-side randomized clinical trial, and three comparative studies. The effectiveness of treatments was categorized as excellent, good, fair, poor, no change, or worsening. Article review and data extraction were conducted using Endnote X8, followed by analysis and categorization of the studies.
resultsThe meta-analysis, involving six studies with 497 patients (mean age: 49.65 years), revealed an overall pooled prevalence of treatment effectiveness: 18% for "excellent," 31% for "good," 40% for "fair," 26% for "poor," and 14% for "no change." Erbium YAG laser exhibited superior results in the "excellent" category, with 20% displaying excellent responsiveness, and in the "good" category, 39% of radiofrequency cases treated with Erbium YAG laser demonstrated favorable results. Conversely, intense pulsed light showed better responsiveness in the "fair" group, with 39% of cases demonstrating fair results.
conclusionOur study indicated a higher percentage of excellent responses compared to other skin rejuvenation treatments with Erbium YAG laser and the highest percentage of good responses with radiofrequency treatment. However, intense pulsed light treatment yielded superior results in the fair response group. Based on our findings, it is evident that utilizing Erbium YAG laser in conjunction with radiofrequency represents a secure approach that surpasses other methods in enhancing and restoring skin quality. Furthermore, a plausible suggestion is made that a combination of these two methods may introduce the most optimal approach for skin rejuvenation in the future.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40906045What 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.