ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Patient-reported outcomes of laser hair removal for hidradenitis suppurativa: an exploratory cross-sectional survey.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeHidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, debilitating skin disease often requiring multimodal therapy. Laser hair removal (LHR) is an emerging treatment option, yet patient-centered data is limited. This study aimed to assess patient perspectives on the effectiveness, safety, motivations, and barriers associated with LHR for HS.
methodsAn anonymous cross-sectional online survey was administered via REDCap (July-December 2024) to adults with HS living in the United States. Respondents reported prior treatments, LHR parameters, outcomes, adverse effects, and barriers. Descriptive statistics were used.
resultsOf 110 participants who completed the survey (110/132, 83%), 24 (22%) had used LHR and comprised the analytic cohort, with a median of 8 LHR sessions (IQR 6-12). Leading motivations included reducing inflammation (92%), relieving pain (75%), and seeking durable treatment (71%). Highest median improvements (score 4, IQR 4-5) were in lumps/abscesses, swelling, and flare frequency. Other symptoms, including pain, odor, and quality of life, also showed moderate improvement. Half reported benefits lasting over 12 months. While biologics were perceived as most effective (median 4.5, IQR 3.5-5), LHR received one of the highest median scores among non-biologic options (3.5, IQR 3-5). Barriers included cost, insurance limitations, and low awareness; 63% paid over $1,000, and 38% discontinued early. Common adverse effects included discomfort (71%) and transient erythema (46%).
conclusionMost patients perceived LHR as beneficial for HS, but affordability and awareness remain barriers. Findings highlight the need for payer advocacy and additional trials defining LHR's role in HS management.
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.