ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2026
Combined Fractional CO
Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pathological scars, particularly hypertrophic and keloid types, often pose significant cosmetic and functional challenges. Although fractional CO₂ lasers and pulsed dye lasers have individually shown promise in scar treatment, their combined efficacy remains underexplored. Methods: Following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42024619973), a comprehensive search across 6 databases identified studies involving patients treated with combined fractional CO₂ laser and pulsed dye laser for scars of various etiologies. Inclusion criteria focused on clinical outcomes such as scar thickness, vascularity, pliability, and pigmentation, assessed via validated tools such as the Vancouver Scar Scale, Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and Observer Scar Assessment Scale. Nine studies, involving a total of 247 patients, were included. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results: The combination therapy significantly improved scar appearance across multiple scales. The pooled mean differences were -18.09 for the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale, -19.44 for the Observer Scar Assessment Scale, and -3.80 for the Vancouver Scar Scale, all of which were statistically significant ( Conclusions: Combining fractional CO₂ and pulsed dye lasers offers superior outcomes in scar remodeling compared with monotherapy, improving both functional and aesthetic aspects with a favorable safety profile. Future studies should focus on standardizing treatment protocols and exploring long-term outcomes to optimize clinical use.
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.