Trial reportLasers in medical science2025
Efficacy and safety of low-fluence 1064 nm picosecond laser with/without micro-lens arrays for melasma treatment: a randomized, split-face controlled study.
Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Low-fluence picosecond (LFPS) neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd: YAG) 1064 nm laser has emerged as a promising treatment for melasma; however, its optimal strategy remains unclear. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of LFPS combined with microlens arrays (MLA) compared with LFPS alone in treating melasma. Thirty patients with melasma received LFPS alone on one side of the face (control [C] side) and LFPS with MLA on the other (treatment [T] side). Treatments were performed at four-week intervals for five sessions. Standardized imaging, VISIA-CR, and assessments using the Physician's Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (P-GAIS) and the Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) score, were performed at baseline, and at one-, three-, and six-months post-treatment. Recurrences and adverse effects were recorded. MASI scores significantly reduced at all time points compared with baseline (ΔMASI: 3.23, 3.35, and 2.98, respectively). The P-GAIS assessment showed that 3 patients rated 1 point, 5 rated 2, 14 rated 3, and 8 rated 4. No significant adverse events occurred. At six months, recurrence was lower on the T side than on the C side (1 vs. 6 patients; p< 0.05). VISIA-CR analysis showed significant spot reduction on both sides, with no statistically significant difference (p>0.05). Additionally, texture and pore metrics improved on the T side, whereas no significant changes were observed on the C side. LFPS with MLA improved melasma severity, reduced recurrence rates, and enhanced skin texture and pores compared with LFPS alone, offering a safe, effective treatment option.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41003821What 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.