ArticleLasers in surgery and medicine2026
Clinical Outcomes of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser Treatment in Women With Vulvar Lichen Simplex Chronicus: A Retrospective Study With 12-Month Follow-Up.
Article in Lasers in surgery and medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Clinical Outcomes of Fractional Carbon Dioxide Laser Treatment in Women With Vulvar Lichen Simplex Chronicus: A Retrospective Study With 12-Month Follow-Up.Lasers in surgery and medicine · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy and safety of fractional carbon dioxide (CO
methodsThis retrospective study included 88 women with VLSC who underwent three sessions of fractional CO
resultsAt 1, 6, and 12 months post-treatment, significant reductions were observed in VAS scores for vulvar pruritus and dyspareunia, as well as in Cattaneo clinical symptom and sign scores (all p < 0.05). The overall response rates were 89.8% (79/88; 95% confidence interval [CI], 81.7%-94.5%), 93.2% (82/88; 95% CI, 85.9%-96.8%), and 88.6% (78/88; 95% CI, 80.3%-93.7%), respectively. According to the PGI-C questionnaire, the proportions of patients reporting improvement or marked improvement were 72.7%, 78.4%, and 70.5% at the corresponding follow-up time points. No significant differences in treatment outcomes were observed according to disease duration or menopausal status.
conclusionFractional 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.