SynthesisJournal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG2026
Laser and energy-based devices for treating rosacea - a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- National Delphi consensus on laser and energy-based treatments for rosacea.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Pooled it
- Laser and energy-based devices for treating rosacea - a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Pooled it
- Neurogenic Rosacea and Facial Dysesthesia: Neurovascular-Immune Mechanisms and Translational Therapeutic Perspectives.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Patient-Reported Experiences in Chronic Dermatological Conditions: Validation of the Romanian PSPSQ 2.0 Within Contemporary Dermatologic Care Pathways.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A Real-World Retrospective Cohort Study Evaluating Clinical Effects and Safety of Radiofrequency Microneedling for the Treatment of Rosacea.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesRosacea is a chronic inflammatory condition affecting the central face. While laser and energy-based devices (EBDs) are commonly used for managing vascular symptoms, comprehensive comparisons between systems are limited. This study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety of lasers and EBDs for rosacea through a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).
methodsRandomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science, with additional searches for ongoing trials. Primary outcomes included patient satisfaction, improvements in erythema and telangiectasia, and long-term adverse events (AEs). Risk of bias (RoB) and publication bias were also assessed.
results25 RCTs were included for qualitative analysis, and subsets contributed to the NMAs. Most studies exhibited unclear or high risk of bias, with a slight publication bias observed. Radiofrequency microneedling was more effective than pulsed dye laser (PDL) in terms of patient satisfaction (MD -1.32; 95 % CI -1.89 to -0.76) and erythema (MD -1.44; 95 % CI -1.96 to -0.91). The combination of oxymetazoline and PDL appeared superior for telangiectasia (MD -0.58; 95 % CI -1.03 to -0.14). AEs and discontinuation rates were comparable across treatments.
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.