SynthesisJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Fractional CO2 Laser Versus Micro Needling Radiofrequency for Post Acne Scarring: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Microneedling Radiofrequency Versus Fractional Laser for the Treatment of Acne Scars: A Systematic Review with Descriptive Quantitative Synthesis.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPost-acne scarring is a prevalent dermatological concern with significant impact on quality of life. Fractional CO2 laser (FCL) and microneedling radiofrequency (MNRF) are widely used treatments, but their comparative efficacy and safety require further synthesis. AIMS AND
objectivesThis meta-analysis was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of FCL versus MNRF in the management of post-acne scarring.
methodsThe analysis included eight randomized controlled trials involving a total of 249 patients. The primary outcomes evaluated encompassed improvement in acne scars, patient satisfaction scores, pain levels, the risk of post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and the duration of erythema.
resultsFCL demonstrated superior improvement in acne scars (MD: 0.31, 95% CI, 0.13-0.48, p = 0.0005) and higher patient satisfaction (MD: 0.32, 95% CI, 0.10-0.44, p = 0.005) compared to MNRF. However, FCL was associated with significantly higher pain scores (MD: 2.14, 95% CI, 1.90-2.37, p < 0.00001), an increased risk of PIH (RR: 4.44, 95% CI, 2.39-8.26, p < 0.00001), and a longer duration of erythema (MD: 1.72 days, 95% CI, 1.43-2.02, p < 0.00001). MNRF exhibited a more favorable safety profile.
conclusionWhile FCL offers superior efficacy for post-acne scarring, MNRF provides better tolerability. The choice of treatment should be individualized, considering patient-specific factors such as skin type, pain tolerance, and recovery expectations. Further research with longer follow-up and standardized outcomes is needed.
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.