ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparison of the efficacy and safety of 755-nm picosecond alexandrite laser with diffractive lens array vs. fractional microneedle radiofrequency for the treatment of facial photoaging: a retrospective study.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of a 755-nm picosecond alexandrite laser combined with a diffractive lens array (PSAL-DLA) vs. fractional microneedle radiofrequency (MNRF) in the treatment of facial photoaging. Methods: This retrospective study enrolled 51 patients with facial photoaging (Glogau scale ≥ II), including 22 in the PSAL-DLA group and 29 in the MNRF group. Objective assessments were performed at baseline and within 3 months post-treatment using the VISIA skin analysis system (spots, wrinkles, texture, pores, UV spots, brown spots, red areas, porphyrins). Subjective evaluation was conducted independently by two board-certified physicians using the Modified Fitzpatrick Wrinkle Scale (MFWS) and Global Aesthetic Improvement Scale (GAIS). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used to compare between-group efficacy, with baseline VISIA scores, age, sex, skin type, and actual follow-up duration as covariates. Treatment-related adverse events were also recorded. Results: The PSAL-DLA group demonstrated significant improvements in brown spots and red areas, and the MNRF group showed a significant reduction in pore scores; however, the between-group differences were not statistically significant ( Conclusion: Both PSAL-DLA and MNRF are safe and effective for treating facial photoaging. PSAL-DLA appears superior for pigmented indicators (spots, UV spots), while MNRF also demonstrates efficacy for pores and wrinkles, although between-group differences were not significant. Treatment selection should be individualized based on the patient's predominant photoaging manifestations.
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.