Application of red light therapy for moderate-to-severe acne vulgaris: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Wu Y, Deng Y, Huang P
Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 9 citas
Etiquetas de revisión
Financiación no declaradaDatos neutrales que nuestra revisión registró sobre cómo se hizo este estudio. Describen el método, nunca si nos gusta el resultado.
Cómo se estudió
- Diseño
- Metaanálisis (indexado por PubMed)
- Estudiado en
- Personas
- Resultado principal
- Marcadores de salud y funcionamiento
Quién lo pagó
- Financiación
- Financiación no declarada
Publicación
- Publicado
- 2021-08-07 · J Cosmet Dermatol · vol. 20 · número 11 · págs. 3498–3508
- Editorial
- Wiley
- Citado
- 12 citas · más que el 47% de estudios similares · 0.5× el promedio de su campo
- Referencias
- 31 trabajos
- Acceso
- De pago
- Áreas de investigación
- Acne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects · Dermatologic Treatments and Research · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
- Palabras clave
- Acne, Medicine, Meta-analysis, Significant difference, Randomized controlled trial, Dermatology, Photodynamic therapy, Adverse effect, Cochrane Library, Intense pulsed light, Mean difference, Internal medicine, Confidence interval
- MeSH
- humans, acne vulgaris, blister, treatment outcome, photochemotherapy, phototherapy, randomized controlled trials as topic
3 autores
- Yifan Wu🇨🇳Nanchang University; Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University
- Yu Deng🇨🇳Nanchang University; Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University
- Peng Huang🇨🇳 · autor de correspondenciaNanchang University
Resumen
El texto original del estudio, en el idioma en que se publicó.
Background
Photodynamic therapy had made great progress in the treatment of acne vulgaris. However, there is no meta-analysis on the effectiveness and safety of red light therapy for acne vulgaris.
Objective
To assess the efficiency and safety of red light therapy for acne vulgaris.
Methods
PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science were retrieved to identify related studies. The outcomes were expressed as improvement in the average percentages of inflammatory acne lesions (MPRI) and non-inflammatory acne lesions (NMPRI), as well as the improvement of acne lesions respectively after treatment.
Results
13 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) consisting of 422 participants were included. There was no significant difference in the average number of non-inflammatory lesions (weighted mean difference (WMD = -0.527; 95% CI,-3.055~2.001; p = 0.683). Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference in the average number of inflammatory lesions (WMD =0.701; 95% CI, -0.809~2.212; p =0.363). In the subgroup analysis of the outcome changes in comedones, pustules, papules, and total lesions, it was found that red light therapy elicited no significant superiority compared with other conventional treatment methods (WMD = -1.125; 95% CI, -3.122~0.873; p = 0.270). Adverse events of the red light group were generally mild or even completely non-existent.
Conclusion
There was no statistically significant difference between red light therapy and traditional therapies in terms of efficacy. However, due to the heterogeneity of the researches and the lack of large sample size, the result of this study needs to be interpreted with caution.
Resumen vía Europe PMC. Los derechos de autor siguen siendo de los autores o la editorial.
Confianza de la comunidad
Cargando…
¿Cuánto confías en los hallazgos de este estudio?
Comentarios
¿Algo está mal aquí?
Señala este estudio si su información, etiquetas o financiación parecen incorrectas. Un editor revisa cada señalamiento.
Información educativa sobre investigación publicada. No es consejo médico ni una recomendación para empezar o dejar nada.