Trial reportLasers in medical science2026
Efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light compared to diode Laser for hair removal: a randomized controlled trial.
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.
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.
Hair Removal by Intense Pulsed Light Versus Diode Laser: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.