Microneedling of Scars: A Large Prospective Study with Long-Term Follow-Up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In recent years, microneedling has been increasingly used to treat a number of dermatologic conditions, including scars. Although initial studies demonstrated improvement of (mostly) atrophic scars with microneedling, the number of patients evaluated was relatively small, and the devices and treatment protocols used and posttreatment follow-up varied widely. Through this prospective observational study, the results of microneedling on 120 patients with a variety of scars are described. METHODS: One hundred twenty consecutive patients (skin phototypes I through VI) with facial and nonfacial scars from a variety of etiologic sources (acne, trauma, surgery) were treated using a mechanical microneedling device. No additional treatments (topical or intralesional) were applied. Two assessors blinded to treatment protocol rated clinical improvement of scars 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after treatment on a five-point scale. Side effects were monitored and tabulated. RESULTS: Patients received one to six consecutive monthly microneedling treatments. All scars improved at least 50 percent after an average of 2.5 treatments. Over 80 percent of patients had 50 to 75 percent improvement, and 65 percent of patients demonstrated over 75 percent improvement. No significant clinical differences were observed in treatment responses of facial scars versus nonfacial scars nor between responses of atrophic acne scars and traumatic or surgical scars. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the use of microneedling for various facial and nonfacial scars across a broad range of skin phototypes with minimal risk of adverse effects. Further studies will help to establish standardized protocols to optimize treatment outcomes for different scar types. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, IV.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".