Trial reportLasers in medical science2026
Comparison of a 755-nm picosecond laser and a 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser for the treatment of atrophic acne scars: a 20-week prospective, randomized, split-face clinical study.
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. 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
Abstract
To compare the efficacy and safety of a 755-nm picosecond laser with a diffractive lens array (P-DLA) and a 1565-nm nonablative fractional laser (NAFL) for the treatment of atrophic acne scars. Twenty-seven patients with atrophic acne scars underwent three sessions of randomized split-face treatment with P-DLA and NAFL at 4-week intervals. Patients were followed up at 1, 2, and 3 months after the final treatment. Efficacy was assessed using the Échelle d'Évaluation Clinique des Cicatrices d'Acné (ECCA) grading scale, the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) score, patients' self-rated improvement, and overall satisfaction. Treatment-related adverse reactions were recorded daily by patients until resolution. Both modalities demonstrated significant improvements in scar appearance based on ECCA score, IGA score, and patients' self-rated improvement (P < 0.001). No statistically significant differences in efficacy were observed between the two treatments. However, the P-DLA group showed higher patient satisfaction (P = 0.035) and a more favorable safety profile, including shorter durations of erythema and edema and the absence of crusting. Both P-DLA and NAFL were effective and safe for the treatment of atrophic acne scars, with similar efficacy. P-DLA offered better tolerability.
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.