I received within the mail, the next anonymous letter today:
“I must state that I had been quite amazed at your comments online Realself re: dermaroller treatments. The general public has got the Internet and therefore are a lot more educated than you may believe. You might want to examine the countless “official” numerous studies and articles on PubMed.gov for that “evidence” you’re missing.
“Simply key in key phrase for example: dermaroller, percutaneous bovine collagen induction, microneedling, needle dermabrasion, etc. You’ll find countless numerous studies and articles from professional journals for example “Journal of Plastic Surgery, Journal Of Cutaneous and Aesthetic Surgery, etc. which PROVE via not just patient satisfaction but histological examination that Dermaroller remedies are EFFECTIVE for the treatment of scars in addition to wrinkles and skin laxity by growing bovine collagen and elastic deposits a 40% thickening from the stratum spinosum and rete ridges. Typically patients report improvement between 60-80% much better than before Dermaroller treatment.
“By carrying out a PubMed.gov search you’ll find your “shred of evidence” it does greater than cause discomfort, along with the pre and post photos that you simply claim that they can not exist, far more of other EVIDENCE that Dermaroller treatments do actually work…who knows, maybe with a rise in your understanding base, you also might wish to utilize Dermaroller treatments inside your practice as well as choose to revise your comments on Realself.com. You are able to thank an educated consumer.
Dear Signature Unreadable,
First, appreciate making the effort to transmit us a letter regarding my Realself opinions around the Dermaroller. In an exceedingly nice way, you claim that I don’t understand what I’m speaking about since i feel there’s hardly any evidence that supports using this product. You condition there are “ countless “official” numerous studies and articles on PubMed.gov and essentially basically were simply to read them “you might wish to utilize Dermaroller treatments inside your practice as well as choose to revise your comments on Realself.com.”
Well fair enough. Within my comments, I didn’t cite the medical literature about this subject, which, honestly, isn’t generally done on Realself. Be assured that additionally to as being a board certified Ophthalmologist, I completed 3 years of fellowship learning plastic surgery and oculoplastic surgery. Furthermore, Used to do a 2-year fundamental science publish-doctorate research fellowship in the Jules Stein Eye Institute and so i really understand how to read and understand a scientific paper. Actually, I function as a peer-reviewer for 8 Index Medicus listed journals. Which means I just read unpublished papers of these journals, make criticisms, and recommend if these scientific papers ought to be printed, remedied, or rejected.
You condition there are countless “official” numerous studies and articles. Pubmed may be the official website for that Library of drugs based on the nation’s Institutes of Health. Not every journals are indexed by this index because not every journals satisfy the rigorous standards needed through the Library of drugs.
Searching under Dermaroller and micro needling reveals not “hundreds of “official” numerous studies and articles but instead 10 articles, percutaneous bovine collagen induction 8 articles, needle dermabrasion 3 articles. That’s roughly 21 articles so not countless articles. A number of these content is descriptive methods papers that actually not to present objective results and don’t become qualified as medical trial. Possibly the most powerful of those papers may be the 2008 paper: Aust MC, Fernandes D, Kaplan HM, and Vogt PM. Percutaneous bovine collagen induction therapy: An alternate strategy to scars, wrinkles, and skin laxity. Plast Reconstr Surg. 121: 1421, 2008. However, this research isn’t a medical trial. The College of Michigan defines a medical trial as “a prospective, biomedical or behavior study of human subjects that is made to answer specific questions regarding biomedical or behavior interventions (drugs, biologics, treatments, devices, or new methods for using known drugs, biologics, treatments, or devices).” The paper by Aust and co-workers would be a retrospective study, not really a prospective study and for that reason not really a medical trial. They checked out the result of treating 480 patients having a Medical Roll-CIT, a microneedle skin moving device. Regrettably, these authors had financial conflicts of great interest. Dr. Plusieurs Fernandes labored for the organization whose products were utilized in the research and owned stock in the organization that made your skin roller. Dr Aust would be a compensated consultant for the organization that made products utilized in the research. Dr. Kaplan seemed to be a compensated consultant towards the U . s . States company that distributed your skin products utilized in the research. There have been many other confounding factors within the study design affecting the effectiveness of this research. The pre and post pictures within this paper shown profound lighting variations between your pre and post images. Because of these biases, it’s not reasonable to summarize this treatment methods are even advantageous, not to mention in a position to enhance the skin 60-80% as claimed through the authors. Clearly, if you’re in the industry of supplying these types of services or selling the gear, you need to embrace these results.
Not every medical journals are regarded as equally reliable. For instance, Journal of Plastic Surgery, that you simply mention, isn’t listed included in the Index Medicus because of this.
I get you at the word that you’re actually an “informed consumer.” Regrettably with no understanding of methods to interpret these papers, you can easily be mislead that the services are some thing than it truly is. This manipulation from the public is regrettably very common. The financial worth of these types of services helps make the financial incentives to provide data within the most positive light quite strong. It’s very hard for the general public to know the constraints from the medical literature, even an “informed consumer.” However, it is very common for that public to become manipulated online. This happens even just in pro-consumer forums for example Realself. For instance, I don’t know what you are or perhaps you are an “informed consumer.” Rather you might be somebody that provides this process and never anxious to determine someone raise questions regarding the real worth of this particular service. I make nothing from my position. I believe that people can’t think that you do not since you’ll have taken such choose to mask your identity.
Dr. Kenneth Steinsapir