↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Laser resurfacing for facial acne scars

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Readers on

mendeley
48 Mendeley
Title
Laser resurfacing for facial acne scars
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd001866.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel Jordan, Carole CL Cummins, Amanda Burls, Daron DC Seukeran

Abstract

Most people have acne at some stage during their life, with about one per cent being left with permanent acne scars. Recent laser techniques are thought to be more effective than chemical peels and dermabrasion. To assess the effects of laser resurfacing for treating facial acne scars. We searched MEDLINE (1966 to April 1999), EMBASE (1980 to April 1999), Science Citation Index (1981 to April 1999), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (April 1999), DARE (April 1999), INAHTA (April 1999), NHS HTA Internet site (April 1999). Dermatological Surgery (1995 to March 1999) and the British Journal of Dermatology (1995 to September 1999) were handsearched. We searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted experts and commercial laser manufacturers. Randomised controlled trials which compare different laser resurfacing techniques for treating patients with facial acne scars, or compare laser resurfacing with other resurfacing techniques or no treatment. Two reviewers independently selected studies, assessed the quality of studies and extracted data. No randomised controlled trials where laser treatment was compared to either placebo or a different type of laser were found. Most of the 27 studies uncovered were poor quality case series with small numbers of acne-scarred patients. The lack of good quality evidence does not enable any conclusions to be drawn about the effectiveness of lasers for treating atrophic or ice-pick acne scars. Well designed randomised controlled comparisons of carbon dioxide versus Erbium:YAG laser are urgently needed.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 48 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 48 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 17%
Student > Master 7 15%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 10%
Other 4 8%
Other 10 21%
Unknown 7 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 52%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Linguistics 1 2%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 8 17%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 April 2016.
All research outputs
#7,230,457
of 12,527,219 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#7,721
of 8,923 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,072
of 264,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#130
of 163 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,527,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,923 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.2. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 163 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.