SynthesisLasers in medical science2025
Pulsed dye laser, fractional CO2 laser, or combination for burn scar treatment: a systematic review.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Laser treatment of hypertrophic scars: the operative and peri-operative practices of burns clinicians.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Effect of early application of a skin surface closure device combined with pulsed dye laser on the morphologic characteristics and clinical symptoms of tension scars on the backs of children.American journal of translational 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose Burn injuries often result in hypertrophic scars, causing functional impairment and aesthetic concerns. Laser therapies, including pulsed dye laser (PDL) and ablative fractional CO2 laser (AFCL), have emerged as promising treatments. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of PDL, AFCL, and their combination in treating burn scars through a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Methods A comprehensive literature search was conducted across four databases from inception to August 2024. Randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing PDL, AFCL, or their combination were included. Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study quality. A preliminary network meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results Eleven studies were included in the systematic review, with two in network meta-analysis. PDL showed a significant reduction in total Vancouver Scar Scale (VSS) scores compared to combination therapy [mean difference (MD) = -0.90, 95% CI: -1.77 to -0.04], while AFCL showed no significant difference. No significant differences were found between treatments for individual VSS components. Qualitative synthesis revealed consistent improvements in scar appearance, texture, pain, and pruritus across studies, with good safety profiles and high patient satisfaction. Conclusion While limited by the small number of studies, our findings suggest potential benefits of PDL for overall scar appearance and comparable efficacy between AFCL and PDL for various scar characteristics. Larger, well-designed randomized controlled trials with longer follow-up periods are needed to provide more definitive evidence on the optimal use of laser therapies in burn scar management. Clinical trial number not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41003790What 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.