Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Recent advances in laser technology allowed the development of systems that improve texture, appearance and pliability of skin in acne scars (AS). Currently, comprehensive comparative studies on the efficacy of the most commonly used fractional systems in AS are lacking. Thus, the aim of this work was to appraise and compare the clinical response to erbium versus CO lasers in AS in the form of a meta-analysis. The databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library were searched. Main clinical outcomes were investigator-reported scar improvement and participant-reported scar improvement. Five studies were included in this meta-analysis. Scar improvement was similar for both types of laser in terms of investigator-reported scar improvement (RR: 0.60 95 % CI: 0.35-1.02) and participant-reported scar improvement (RR: 0.99 95 % CI: 0.79-1.25). A sensitivity analysis that excluded studies with high risk of bias found the CO lasers to be superior to the erbium lasers (RR: 0.47 95 % CI: 0.24-0.93): However, the subgroup analysis showed the CO laser not to be significantly different from either the non-ablative erbium (RR: 0.65 95 % CI: 0.34-1.24) or the ablative erbium laser (RR: 0.60 95 % CI: 0.35-1.02). The CO laser produced a slightly greater clinical response compared to the erbium lasers based on the physician's assessment. Overall, the two devices do not differ largely in terms of efficacy but may be complementary, with each resurfacing laser better suited for different clinical tasks.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ddg.14546 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!