ReviewCureus2025
Microneedling for Non-cosmetic Dermatologic Conditions: A Systematic Review of Efficacy and Safety.
Review in Cureus, 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.
- The Effect of Microneedling Mesotherapy, Chemical Exfoliation and Combination Therapy on Selected Skin Parameters and Cutibacterium acnes Colonization in Women With Oily Skin.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Trial
- Transcriptomic responses of skin to different micro-injury modalities: fire filiform needling, ablative fractional COLasers in medical science · 2026Article
- A Systematic Review of the Mechanisms and Therapeutic Applications of GHK-Cu (Glycyl-L-Histidyl-L-Lysine-Copper Complex) in Topical Microneedle Delivery: A Case for Expanded Clinical Trials.Archives of internal medicine research · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Microneedling, a minimally invasive dermatologic procedure, has expanded beyond cosmetic use to treat conditions such as vitiligo, hyperhidrosis, melasma, acne vulgaris, and actinic keratoses. This systematic review, conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, included 15 randomized controlled trials involving approximately 1,200 participants identified through searches of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) up to July 2025. Across multiple conditions, microneedling - particularly when combined with adjunct therapies - demonstrated significant clinical benefits. In vitiligo, microneedling with tacrolimus or 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) achieved repigmentation rates of 40-76.6% compared with 16.9-39.9% for monotherapy. In hyperhidrosis, fractional microneedle radiofrequency (FMR) reduced sweat production, although botulinum toxin A yielded longer-lasting results and greater patient satisfaction. For melasma, combinations with tranexamic acid or cysteamine produced notable modified melasma area and severity index (mMASI) score reductions (29-50%), while in acne vulgaris, microneedle radiofrequency (MRF) outperformed photodynamic therapy (PDT), achieving an 81% reduction in inflammatory lesions versus 73%, with fewer adverse events. Microneedling-assisted PDT also improved actinic keratoses clearance rates by 18% (76% vs 58%). Adverse effects such as transient erythema and mild pain were consistently reported but generally well tolerated. Overall, current evidence supports microneedling as an effective and safe treatment for diverse non-cosmetic dermatologic conditions, particularly when integrated with topical or procedural adjuncts, though standardized protocols and long-term outcome data remain needed.
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.