SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Fractional laser therapy versus microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions.
Synthesis 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundScarring caused by trauma, burns, surgery, and other dermal fibrotic conditions can lead to functional limitation and cosmetic distress. The comparative effectiveness of fractional laser therapy and microneedling for non-acne scars remains uncertain.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing fractional laser therapy with microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions. Following a PROSPERO-registered protocol and PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and CNKI from inception to May 2026 without language restrictions. Parallel-group and split-body randomized trials were eligible. Random-effects models were used to calculate standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes.
resultsNine randomized controlled trials were included. Fractional laser therapy showed a statistically significant advantage over microneedling in scar scores (SMD = -0.99, 95% CI [-1.83, -0.15], P = 0.02) and collagen fiber regeneration (SMD = -2.14, 95% CI [-3.57, -0.72], P = 0.03). No statistically significant differences were found between the two interventions for elastic fiber improvement, epidermal thickness, or adverse events. Subgroup analyses did not show clear or consistent significant differences according to laser type, including comparisons between traditional and non-traditional fractional lasers and between CO₂ and non-CO₂ fractional laser systems. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across several outcomes, indicating considerable between-study variability.
conclusionBased on currently available randomized evidence, fractional laser therapy may provide superior improvement in overall scar severity and collagen fiber regeneration compared with microneedling for non-acne scars and scar-like dermal fibrotic lesions. However, no clear differences were observed for elastic fiber improvement, epidermal thickness, or adverse-event incidence. Given the substantial heterogeneity, limited sample sizes, and possible reporting bias, these findings should be interpreted cautiously. Further large, standardized trials with longer follow-up are needed.
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.