Introduction The overall effects of Carboxytherapy, defined as the administration of carbon dioxide, have been studied for many years. It has been suggested that by improving oxygenation, interacting with the tissue perfusion regulators, and disrupting the adipose cell membranes, the method can lead to notable improvements in different esthetic and pathological conditions. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the available studies evaluating the potential benefits of carboxytherapy in dermatological conditions and how it objectively stands against scientific scrutiny. Methods We searched the PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science databases, including the studies exploring the method's efficacy in managing any dermatological condition. Results A total 27 of studies were identified (with a pooled sample of over 700 cases), most of which were clinical trials. Facial wrinkles, periorbital hyperpigmentation, skin laxity deficiency, scars, striae distensae, localized lipolysis and cellulite, alopecia, chronic diabetic wounds, and psoriatic plaques comprised the package of the dermatological conditions that were studied. Except for a few studies, the method mainly demonstrated significant improvements on all of the mentioned conditions. The inter‐ and post‐operational adverse events were mild and transient, including erythema, pain, crepitus, and ecchymoses. Discussion Carboxytherapy can provide those practicing in the field with sustainably favorable results. However, the numbers of cases on whom the fat‐reducing capabilities of the method were studied and experienced varying degrees of recurrence caught our eye. In addition, we observed a notable disparity between the outcome measures utilized in the studies. The modest sample size in each condition also added to the injury, as the conditions on which the method was evaluated are pretty common in the general population. Therefore, for a definite conclusion, more randomized controlled trials with the shortcomings mentioned well addressed need to be conducted.
Background COVID‐19 vaccines are currently the most effective interventions in controlling and preventing severe disease progression. Dermatologic reactions to COVID‐19 vaccinations may be rare among clinical trial participants. However, since global mass vaccination became a reality, these adverse effects may become more widespread, and different skin reactions would arise. Objective To systematically review the cutaneous adverse reactions in cases subject to vaccines for COVID‐19. Methods We searched the PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and Embase databases, identifying the relevant records and including the eligible observational ones. After assessing the methodological quality of the included studies, we qualitatively and quantitatively synthesized the data regarding the cutaneous side effects experienced by those in the studies' population. Results Overall, 36 studies were included in our systematic review, with the majority being cross‐sectional. We found that pain, erythema, and swelling were the most common local side effects, while different types of rashes, urticaria, and angioedema were the most non‐local. Few cases also reported experiencing flare‐ups of their underlying diseases or developing newly‐onset diseases of various etiologies. Our meta‐analyses also found that while viral vector‐based vaccines are, though insignificantly, safer in injection site complaints, individuals who received mRNA vaccines developed significantly fewer non‐local cutaneous adverse events. Discussion Cutaneous reactions to the COVID‐19 vaccines are similar to common cutaneous drug eruptions and COVID‐19 cutaneous manifestations. However, we believe that further high‐quality research is needed to assess better how and why cutaneous reactions occur in different vaccines.
With the investigation of the efficacy of laser therapy in primary localized amyloidosis(PLCA) only recently starting to materialize, we aimed to review the currently available studies of laser therapy in the management of the disease. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane, and ProQuest online databases with a specified search strategy, assessed the quality of each study, and then extracted the eligible data. Five RCTs(randomized controlled trials), one non-randomized controlled trial, three case series, and nine case reports(18 in total) were included. Overall, carbon dioxide (CO2), neodymium-doped:yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG), pulsed dye (PDL), Er (Erbium):YAG, and yttrium/ erbium fiber were the studied lasers. One hundred fifty-five cases in total underwent laser therapy, with CO2 being the most frequent laser. Almost all studies demonstrated significantly desirable outcomes, while only mild and transient side effects were noted. Even though the studies' results were significant, we noticed that implementing a consistent methodology and a standardized objective assessment method was missing. Therefore, we recommend that future studies be conducted with less heterogeneous data for a more definite conclusion.
Melasma is an acquired, chronic, and commonly recalcitrant hyper melanosis of the skin due to the hyperactivity of the epidermal melanocytes. It is described as bilateral brown-to-dark macules and patches mostly on sun-exposed areas, predominantly the face. 1,2 Melasma is presumed to be a multifactorial condition, not limited to any race, while being much more common in women, accounting for up to 90% of all cases predominantly with Fitzpatrick's skin phototypes III-V. 1 Since melasma negatively affects the quality of life and selfesteem, 3 much scientific effort has been dedicated, with various treatments being introduced into clinical practice. Topical agentsespecially tyrosinase inhibitors (i.e., hydroquinone (HQ), azelaic acid, and kojic acid)-, broad-spectrum sunscreens, chemical peels, tranexamic acid (TA), and lasers currently make up the front lines
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.