SynthesisLasers in medical science2025
A comprehensive systematic review on the efficacy, safety, tolerability, and relapse rates of modern procedural therapies for inflammatory and non-inflammatory acne vulgaris.
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 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.
- Comparison of the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL), pulsed dye laser (PDL), and Q-switched neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd: YAG) laser in the treatment of moderate to severe inflammatory acne: a three-arm randomized controlled clinical trial.Lasers in medical science · 2026Trial
- Procedural Treatments as Adjuncts in the Management of Acne Vulgaris: A Narrative Review.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Review
- Comparison of the Efficacy of Q-Switched Versus Long-Pulsed Fractional 1064 nm Nd:YAG Laser in the Treatment of Active Facial Acne: A Pilot, Double-Blind, Randomized, Controlled, Split-Face Study.Health science reports · 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Procedural therapies are increasingly recognized as effective adjunctive treatments for acne vulgaris alongside topical and systemic options. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the efficacy, safety and relapse rate of various procedural therapies in managing acne vulgaris. Data from 160 studies involving 8121 patients were analyzed across four major databases up to 2024. Treatment approaches were stratified into six categories: Light therapies (n = 55), Chemical Peelings (n = 20), Lasers (n = 21), Radiofrequency (n = 5), Comparative Studies (n = 18), Combination Studies (n = 36), and other modalities (n = 5). Photodynamic therapy (PDT) using Intense Pulsed Light and Aminolaevulinic acid showed a 56.66% median improvement rate for inflammatory acne but had low tolerability due to pain and burning sensations, Limiting its use.Among chemical peels, Salicylic Acid at 30% had the highest efficacy at 85%, followed by Glycolic Acid at 80.25%. In contrast, Jessner Solution and 25%Trichloroacetic acid were less effective and increased the risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH).Comparing lasers and light therapies showed that PDL had less efficacy compared to light therapies, but Nd:YAG was more effective, especially in noninflammatory lesions, with fewer flare-ups. Fractional Microneedling Radiofrequency (RF) was more effective and had lower recurrence rates in comparison to lasers and RF. The evolution in acne vulgaris management highlights the growing prominence of procedural therapies, each offering varying levels of efficacy and safety profiles.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40993442What 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.