ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2026
Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Pulsed Dye Laser, Intense Pulsed Light and Radiofrequency Therapy in the Treatment of Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Optoelectronic advances have boosted interest in noninvasive rosacea treatments. Among them, pulsed dye laser (PDL), intense pulsed light (IPL), and radiofrequency (RF) therapy have been used to treat erythematotelangiectatic rosacea (ETR), and some therapeutic effects have been reported, but comparative studies are lacking. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of PDL, IPL, and RF therapy for the treatment of ETR. Patients and Methods: A retrospective evaluation was conducted of patients with ETR who completed phototherapy between June 2019 and June 2024. The treatment protocol included two sessions of 585 nm PDL therapy (6-week interval), three sessions of IPL (M22 590 filter) therapy (590-1200 nm, 4-week interval), or six sessions of multisource 3DEEP RF therapy (2-week interval), with a follow-up visit at 12 weeks post-final treatment. The clinical efficacy evaluation consisted of the Clinician Erythema Assessment (CEA) scale, patient self-assessment (PSA) scale, the overall efficacy rate, and the Rosacea-Specific Quality of Life instrument (RosaQoL). Safety was evaluated in terms of adverse reactions such as pain, purpura, erythematous edema, blistering, hyperpigmentation, and scarring. Results: This study included 120 patients with ETR treated with PDL, M22 590, or RF therapy. Intragroup analysis revealed significant decreases in the CEA scale, PSA scale, and RosaQoL scores after treatment (p<0.001). The efficacy rates were 57.50%, 45.00%, and 67.50% for PDL, M22 590, and RF therapy, respectively, and no statistically significant intergroup differences were observed. Safety analysis confirmed that all the treatments were well tolerated. Conclusion: PDL, IPL and RF therapy all produced short-term improvements in erythema and quality of life in patients with ETR. RF showed comparable efficacy with better tolerability, suggesting a comfortable, low downtime option, while PDL and IPL are vascular-targeted tools. These exploratory findings require confirmation in longer, dose-standardized prospective studies.
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.