Italian journal of dermatology and venereology · 2023
Efficacy and safety of intense pulsed light for the treatment of facial erythema: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
МетаанализСистематический обзорСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Cai Yujia, Zhu Yuan, Xiang Wenzhong, Song Xiuzu
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Facial erythema can be seen in many patients. Despite various clinical trials exploring the effect of intense pulsed light (IPL) in treating facial erythema, comprehensive evidence about the specific outcomes remains lacking.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched published studies in the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases based on established inclusion criteria. We calculated odds ratios (OR) to evaluate the effectiveness of IPL in patients with facial erythema. We used Review Manager 5.4.1 software for statistical data analyses with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: This review includes seven studies with 219 patients, of which five compared the efficacy of IPL with pulsed dye laser (PDL). IPL significantly improved facial erythema compared to no treatment (OR=56.64, 95% CI: 22.70-141.33; P<0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between IPL and PDL treatment (OR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.31-3.22; P=1.00). Moreover, there was no significant difference in patients with a >50% reduction in telangiectasias between IPL and PDL treatment (OR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.39-2.56; P=1.00). Furthermore, IPL therapy had no apparent adverse effects for most people besides transitory edema and erythema.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicated that IPL could effectively and safely improve facial erythema with similar efficacy to PDL. Based on its comprehensive function, light side effects, and long curative effect, IPL appears to be a good alternative for treating facial erythema. However, further prospective and high-quality studies are required.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched published studies in the Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases based on established inclusion criteria. We calculated odds ratios (OR) to evaluate the effectiveness of IPL in patients with facial erythema. We used Review Manager 5.4.1 software for statistical data analyses with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: This review includes seven studies with 219 patients, of which five compared the efficacy of IPL with pulsed dye laser (PDL). IPL significantly improved facial erythema compared to no treatment (OR=56.64, 95% CI: 22.70-141.33; P<0.00001). However, there was no significant difference between IPL and PDL treatment (OR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.31-3.22; P=1.00). Moreover, there was no significant difference in patients with a >50% reduction in telangiectasias between IPL and PDL treatment (OR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.39-2.56; P=1.00). Furthermore, IPL therapy had no apparent adverse effects for most people besides transitory edema and erythema.
CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis indicated that IPL could effectively and safely improve facial erythema with similar efficacy to PDL. Based on its comprehensive function, light side effects, and long curative effect, IPL appears to be a good alternative for treating facial erythema. However, further prospective and high-quality studies are required.