Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42249955›Full record

Trial reportLasers in medical science2026

Efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light compared to diode Laser for hair removal: a randomized controlled trial.

Renata Taylor de Brito Barros, Olívia Harumi Araújo Sato Stella, Thais Rodrigues Galache, Luciana Camargo Khachikian, Richard Eloin Liebano, Christiane Pavani

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06179186 (Hair Removal by Intense Pulsed Light Versus Diode Laser), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06179186 naterminatednot on this map

Hair Removal by Intense Pulsed Light Versus Diode Laser: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Nove de JulhoRan2023 to 2024Enrolled48ConditionsHair RemovalArmsIntense Pulsed Light, Diode Laser
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Renata Taylor de Brito BarrosBiophotonics-Medicine Postgraduate Program, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-4902-0159
Olívia Harumi Araújo Sato StellaUniversidade São Francisco, Bragança Paulista, Brazil.
Thais Rodrigues GalacheBiophotonics-Medicine Postgraduate Program, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8332-9677
Luciana Camargo KhachikianBiophotonics-Medicine Postgraduate Program, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0007-2244-8489
Richard Eloin LiebanoDepartment of Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Hartford, West Hartford, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4795-6723
Christiane PavaniBiophotonics-Medicine Postgraduate Program, Universidade Nove de Julho, São Paulo, Brazil. chrispavani@uni9.pro.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8275-7370

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To compare the efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light (IPL) versus diode laser (DL) for female axillary hair removal in a randomized split-body trial. Women with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV received IPL (690-nm filter) and DL (810 nm) on contralateral axillae with randomized side assignment. Four monthly sessions were performed. The primary outcome was hair count in a standardized 4-cm² area. Secondary outcomes included hair shaft thickness, pain intensity (numeric rating scale), participant satisfaction, evaluator-rated improvement (modified GAIS), quality of life (WHOQOL-bref), and adverse events. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to side allocation. Forty-eight participants initiated treatment; 36 completed all sessions and 28 attended the 4-week post-treatment assessment (S4). Hair counts and hair shaft thickness decreased significantly over time with both modalities. At S4 (primary endpoint), the intention-to-treat analysis showed no statistically significant between-modality difference in hair counts; at 30-week (around 7 months) follow-up, DL showed more favorable objective outcomes (lower hair counts and thinner residual shafts). Pain scores were consistently higher with DL. Adverse-event profiles differed: erythema was more frequent with IPL, whereas perifollicular edema and carbonization were more frequent with DL; events were transient and required no medical intervention. Exploratory stratification by Fitzpatrick skin type showed no consistent pattern of increased adverse events in higher skin types. Satisfaction favored DL, while WHOQOL-bref scores did not change significantly. IPL and DL were both safe and effective for axillary hair removal in women with Fitzpatrick skin types I-IV. DL yielded more favorable longer-term objective outcomes but greater discomfort and transient procedure-related adverse effects. Trial registration: NCT06179186, 23 December 2023.

Indexed as

Hair RemovalIntense Pulsed Light TherapyLasers, SemiconductorLow-Level Light TherapyAdultAxillaFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPatient SatisfactionQuality of LifeTreatment OutcomeDiode laserHair removalIntense pulsed lightRandomized clinical trialSelective photothermolysis

Identifiers

PMID42249955
PMCPMC13242373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.