Cargando…
Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy
There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light, laser diodes, radiofrequency, light-emitting diodes, and ultraviolet B phototherapy. The objective of this report is to evaluate t...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8918178/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33938981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0 |
_version_ | 1784668678091964416 |
---|---|
author | Cohen, Marc Austin, Evan Masub, Natasha Kurtti, Alana George, Christopher Jagdeo, Jared |
author_facet | Cohen, Marc Austin, Evan Masub, Natasha Kurtti, Alana George, Christopher Jagdeo, Jared |
author_sort | Cohen, Marc |
collection | PubMed |
description | There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light, laser diodes, radiofrequency, light-emitting diodes, and ultraviolet B phototherapy. The objective of this report is to evaluate the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for the treatment of skin conditions. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl was conducted on November 9, 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Original research articles that investigated the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for dermatologic use were included. Bibliographies were screened for additional relevant articles. Strength of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Clinical recommendations were then made based on the quality of the existing literature. After review, 37 clinical trials were included—19 were randomized controlled trials, 16 were case series, and 2 were non-randomized controlled trials. Ultimately, from our analysis, we recommend the home-based use of intense pulsed light for hair removal, laser diodes for androgenic alopecia, low power radiofrequency for rhytides and wrinkles, and light-emitting diodes for acne vulgaris. Trials investigating ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis revealed mixed evidence for home treatments compared to clinic treatments. All devices had favorable safety profiles with few significant adverse events. Limitations to our review include a limited number of randomized controlled trials as well as a lack of data on the long-term efficacy and safety of each device. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8918178 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89181782022-03-17 Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy Cohen, Marc Austin, Evan Masub, Natasha Kurtti, Alana George, Christopher Jagdeo, Jared Arch Dermatol Res Review There is increasing demand for home-based devices for the treatment of dermatologic conditions and cosmesis. Commercially available devices include intense pulsed light, laser diodes, radiofrequency, light-emitting diodes, and ultraviolet B phototherapy. The objective of this report is to evaluate the current evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for the treatment of skin conditions. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and Cinahl was conducted on November 9, 2020 using PRISMA guidelines. Original research articles that investigated the efficacy and safety of home-based devices for dermatologic use were included. Bibliographies were screened for additional relevant articles. Strength of evidence was graded using the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine guidelines. Clinical recommendations were then made based on the quality of the existing literature. After review, 37 clinical trials were included—19 were randomized controlled trials, 16 were case series, and 2 were non-randomized controlled trials. Ultimately, from our analysis, we recommend the home-based use of intense pulsed light for hair removal, laser diodes for androgenic alopecia, low power radiofrequency for rhytides and wrinkles, and light-emitting diodes for acne vulgaris. Trials investigating ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis revealed mixed evidence for home treatments compared to clinic treatments. All devices had favorable safety profiles with few significant adverse events. Limitations to our review include a limited number of randomized controlled trials as well as a lack of data on the long-term efficacy and safety of each device. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-05-03 2022 /pmc/articles/PMC8918178/ /pubmed/33938981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Review Cohen, Marc Austin, Evan Masub, Natasha Kurtti, Alana George, Christopher Jagdeo, Jared Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy |
title | Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy |
title_full | Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy |
title_fullStr | Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy |
title_full_unstemmed | Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy |
title_short | Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy |
title_sort | home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8918178/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33938981 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cohenmarc homebaseddevicesindermatologyasystematicreviewofsafetyandefficacy AT austinevan homebaseddevicesindermatologyasystematicreviewofsafetyandefficacy AT masubnatasha homebaseddevicesindermatologyasystematicreviewofsafetyandefficacy AT kurttialana homebaseddevicesindermatologyasystematicreviewofsafetyandefficacy AT georgechristopher homebaseddevicesindermatologyasystematicreviewofsafetyandefficacy AT jagdeojared homebaseddevicesindermatologyasystematicreviewofsafetyandefficacy |