ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2025
Long-term efficacy and safety of carbon dioxide (CO
Article in American journal of translational research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy and safety of fractional carbon dioxide and erbium-based fractional lasers for atrophic acne scars: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Lasers in medical science · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcne vulgaris is a prevalent skin condition that often leads to facial scarring, significantly affecting patients' quality of life. Laser therapies, particularly carbon dioxide (CO
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 254 patients with acne scars who were treated between January 2021 and January 2024. Among them, 124 patients received CO
resultsEr:YAG laser demonstrated significantly lower intraoperative pain (VAS: 3.12 ± 0.23 vs. CO
conclusionThe CO
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.