ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Real-world ocular safety performance of dermatologic laser and intense pulsed light goggles: a clinical safety audit.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Effective ocular protection is essential during dermatologic laser and intense pulsed light (IPL) procedures to prevent retinal and corneal injury. Despite widespread clinical use, the real-world safety performance of protective goggles has not been systematically evaluated. To assess the real-world optical density (OD) performance of dermatologic laser and IPL goggles and to identify potential risks associated with inadequate eye protection. Optical density was measured across 350–920 nm using a xenon lamp–based spectrophotometric system for goggles used with IPL, long-pulsed Nd: YAG, Q-switched Nd: YAG, and pulsed dye lasers (PDL). Both new (≤ 1 year of clinical use) and aged (≥ 5 years) goggles were tested. Measured OD values were compared with ANSI Z136.1 maximum permissible exposure (MPE) thresholds. Most wavelength-specific laser goggles met or exceeded labeled OD specifications, providing reliable ocular protection. In contrast, several IPL goggles, including commercially branded models, failed to meet ANSI Z136.1 safety thresholds within portions of the 400–750 nm range. No significant difference in OD performance was observed between new and aged goggles. The measurement system was limited to ≤ 920 nm, and the number of tested goggle models was modest. While laser-specific goggles generally provided adequate protection, several IPL goggles demonstrated insufficient attenuation across clinically relevant wavelengths, posing potential ocular risks. Clinicians should verify wavelength-specific OD performance rather than rely solely on manufacturer labeling. These findings underscore the need for improved regulatory oversight, standardized certification, and increased awareness to ensure durable and consistent ocular protection in dermatologic practice.
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.