ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Re: The efficacy, satisfaction, and safety of carbon dioxide (CO2) fractional laser in combination with pulsed dye laser (PDL) versus each one alone in the treatment of hypertrophic burn scars: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This letter comments on the randomized trial by Karimi Kivi et al. comparing pulsed dye laser (PDL), ablative fractional carbon dioxide laser (AFCL), and their combination for hypertrophic burn scars. Several reporting and methodological issues warrant clarification, including the apparent inconsistency in the presentation of Vancouver Scar Scale data, the discrepancy between the reported total number of scars and the numbers shown in the original article, and the statistical handling of multiple scars from the same patient. Clarification of these issues would improve the transparency and interpretability of the study and facilitate its appropriate use in future evidence syntheses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42878919What 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.