Observational studyLasers in medical science2025
Intense pulsed Light, Light-Emitting Diode, and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of rosacea: A clinical observation.
Observational study 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRosacea is a common, chronic inflammatory skin condition lacking specific treatment. This study investigates the efficacy of various photoelectric therapies in treating rosacea. 90 rosacea patients who visited the dermatology outpatient clinic of the hospital from August 2022 to November 2023 were analyzed (retrospective registration 20240425). The patients were categorized into three groups based on different treatment methods: the control group received oral hydroxychloroquine sulfate and topical recombinant bovine basic fibroblast growth factor; observation group 1 underwent intense pulsed light therapy in addition to the control group's treatment; observation group 2 received light-emitting diode therapy on top of the control group's regimen. The therapeutic effect was evaluated by physicians' subjective evaluation and patients' pruritus symptoms. The effective rates of observation group 1, observation group 2, and the control group were 73.3%, 66.7%, and 40%, respectively, with statistical significance (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between observation group 1 and observation group 2 (P < 0.05). Additionally, there were no significant adverse reactions in any of the three groups. The comparison between observation group 1 and observation group 2 revealed that the two combined treatment methods achieved similar and positive therapeutic effects across various clinical manifestations. The effectiveness of both observation groups was found to be superior to that of drug therapy alone.
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.