SynthesisAesthetic plastic surgery2026
Laser, Microneedling, and Combination Therapies for Moderate to Severe Acne Atrophic Scars: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Aesthetic plastic surgery, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of laser therapies, microneedling/radiofrequency microneedling, chemical reconstruction or peeling, subcision, fillers, and combination treatments for moderate-to-severe atrophic acne scars using systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
methodsPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were searched for randomized controlled trials published from January 1, 2010 to August 10, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and evaluated evidence certainty using GRADE. Outcomes included ECCA score, Goodman-Baron scar score, significant improvement rate, significant satisfaction rate, and pain visual analogue scale (VAS). Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed in R, and sensitivity analyses were conducted by excluding small-sample and high-risk-of-bias studies where applicable.
resultsFifty-six randomized controlled trials involving 1488 patients and 34 interventions were included. Most participants were enrolled in split-face or self-controlled studies. In the primary SUCRA analysis, MFR + bFGF ranked highest for ECCA score improvement, followed by CO
conclusionCombination therapies generally outperformed monotherapies for moderate-to-severe atrophic acne scars. Fractional CO LEVEL OF EVIDENCE I: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .
Indexed as
Identifiers
42429955What 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.