SynthesisLasers in surgery and medicine2025
Efficacy and Safety of Laser Treatment in Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Laser Treatment in Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus: A Systematic Review.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 2025Pooled it
- One-year outcome after laser treatment of vulvar lichen sclerosus: a prospective observational trial.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026Trial
- Two-year follow-up of women with lichen sclerosus treated with laser therapy: A prospective observational study.Lasers in medical science · 2026Observational
- Association Between Photodynamic Therapy Session Number and Psychosexual Well-Being in Vulvar Lichen Sclerosus: A Correlation Analysis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study systematically reviews randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating laser therapy for vulvar lichen sclerosus (VLS) to assess its efficacy and safety, aiming to inform clinical management and guideline development.
methodsRCTs on laser treatment for VLS were retrieved from PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases up to January 2025, limited to English literature. References from included studies were also screened. Data on study characteristics, laser parameters, outcome measures, measurement tools, and assessment time points were extracted and analyzed.
resultsSeven RCTs (332 patients) reported 19 outcomes and 19 measurement tools, each used a total of 28 times. Symptoms and signs were most frequently reported and commonly measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Most trials indicated improvements in symptoms, signs, quality of life (QoL), and histology after laser therapy. Three studies reported greater symptom/sign improvement than topical corticosteroids (p < 0.05), and three found higher patient satisfaction (p < 0.05). Two studies showed good tolerability via VAS. Adverse events occurred in five studies (147 patients), including five mild cases (local irritation, blisters, urinary tract infection, itching, and pain). Due to heterogeneity and low study quality, a meta-analysis was not performed.
conclusionsLaser therapy improves symptoms/signs, QoL, and histological outcomes in VLS, with good safety and tolerability. However, the evidence supporting its use as a monotherapy is limited, and benefits for anti-inflammatory, anti-fibrotic, scar-preventive, or anticarcinogenic effects remain unproven. Large-scale, long-term, and high-quality trials are needed, and future research should establish standardized Core Outcome and Measurement Sets to optimize VLS management.
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.