PubHawk
April 2022 PMID 33938981

Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy.

Marc Cohen, Evan Austin, Natasha Masub, Alana Kurtti, Christopher George, Jared Jagdeo

Full text PDF Download social card

Mentions

8
Peak: 1 in May 2021
across 3 sources since May 2021

Extended reach

852,156
potential audience

Total likes

9,302

Video views

850,998

Mentions per month

May 2021 – Mar 2025

Where it's discussed

  • News4 articles
  • X / Twitter2 posts
  • YouTube2 videos

AI synopsis

What people are saying

The group collectively shows cautious optimism, with comments such as highlighting the safety of devices like LED light therapy and mentioning the 'limited data' on long-term safety, which reflects an engagement with the review’s findings. Words like 'safe,' 'effective,' and 'recommendations' suggest that participants see some value in the article, while acknowledging current gaps, thereby balancing agreement and interest without overstating the impact.

AgreementModerate agreement

Most discussions acknowledge the review's positive conclusions about home-based dermatology devices' safety and effectiveness.

InterestModerate interest

Participants express moderate curiosity, referencing how these devices might influence personal skincare routines.

EngagementModerate engagement

Posts show some depth, with users discussing specific device types and rating their potential benefits and limitations.

ImpactNeutral impact

The overall influence appears moderate, as discussions recognize potential changes in dermatology practices but also note limitations in current evidence.

Abstract in brief

  • The review evaluated 37 clinical studies on various home-based dermatology devices, including light therapies and laser diodes, to assess their safety and effectiveness.
  • The findings suggest that devices like intense pulsed light for hair removal, laser diodes for hair loss, low-power radiofrequency for wrinkles, and LEDs for acne are generally safe and recommended based on current evidence, while UVB phototherapy for psoriasis shows mixed results.
  • Limitations include a small number of high-quality randomized trials and limited data on long-term safety and efficacy of these devices.]
Read the full abstract

Top posts

Most liked on X and Bluesky
Gaëlle Queignec
@Chimienaturels · X

Review Cohen M et al (2021). Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0. PMID: 33938981. https://t.co/qtYZ2Ijsd9 https://t.co/LpKP9MZ9G8

May 7, 2021 · 1,144 followers View post →
筋トレ論文でマウントを取るロック・リー
@DaraDaraTraning · X

家庭用脱毛器は十分効果がある。 筋肉が綺麗に見えるようにしよ 参考:皮膚科における在宅デバイス：安全性と有効性の系統的レビュー (2021年 システマティック・レビュー) https://t.co/WcTNUpjEoK

Jun 14, 2022 · 14 followers View post →

All mentions

筋トレ論文でマウントを取るロック・リー
@DaraDaraTraning · X

家庭用脱毛器は十分効果がある。 筋肉が綺麗に見えるようにしよ 参考:皮膚科における在宅デバイス：安全性と有効性の系統的レビュー (2021年 システマティック・レビュー) https://t.co/WcTNUpjEoK

Jun 14, 2022 · 14 followers View post →
Gaëlle Queignec
@Chimienaturels · X

Review Cohen M et al (2021). Home-based devices in dermatology: a systematic review of safety and efficacy. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021 May 3. doi: 10.1007/s00403-021-02231-0. PMID: 33938981. https://t.co/qtYZ2Ijsd9 https://t.co/LpKP9MZ9G8

May 7, 2021 · 1,144 followers View post →