SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Comparative efficacy and safety of fractional carbon dioxide and erbium-based fractional lasers for atrophic acne scars: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis 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
Fractional laser resurfacing is widely used for atrophic acne scars, but the comparative efficacy and tolerability of fractional carbon dioxide (CO₂) and erbium-based fractional lasers remain uncertain because of heterogeneous outcome definitions and laser platforms. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the clinical response, safety, and recovery profiles of fractional CO₂ and erbium-based fractional lasers for atrophic acne scars. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to April 2026. Comparative clinical studies evaluating fractional CO₂ lasers versus erbium: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er: YAG) or erbium-glass fractional lasers were included. Clinical response > 50% improvement was harmonized as the primary efficacy outcome. Relative risks (RRs), mean differences (MDs), and odds ratios (ORs) were pooled with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Five studies involving 130 analyzed participants were included. Four studies contributed to the primary efficacy analysis. Erbium-based lasers were associated with a lower probability of > 50% clinical response than fractional CO₂ laser (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.49-0.97; I²=45.9%). In the randomized-only sensitivity analysis, the direction was maintained but the CI included the null (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.54-1.08). Fractional CO₂ laser was associated with greater treatment-related pain (MD, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.33-2.39) and longer downtime (MD, 3.67 days; 95% CI, 1.90-5.44). No statistically significant differences were observed for post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 0.67-4.57) or acneiform events (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.12-4.25). Available comparative evidence suggests a favorable clinical-response signal for fractional CO₂ laser, accompanied by greater procedural pain and longer recovery. Treatment selection should therefore balance expected scar improvement against tolerability and downtime.
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.