Does anyone know of or has anyone read a legitimate, convincing study on the efficacy of RF needling?
I've been researching for a long time without finding anything other than small sample size studies which (1) only briefly refer to risks and (2) don't thoroughly address good candidates vs bad.
When I asked a doctor with whom I have been treating about RF needling, he pretty much scoffed and called it junk science with more risks than reward - which took me by surprise.
So so since then I've been lookin for studies in tying to determine whether I am a good candidate, and there is a surprising dearth.
For example - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4134659/#!po=77.2727
...which suffers from the problems I set forth above.
So - what is some good, independent, objective reading on rf, that might help you determine whether you'rea good candidate?
On 4/9/2018 at 5:37 PM, NeoFight said:Does anyone know of or has anyone read a legitimate, convincing study on the efficacy of RF needling?
2) [Link removed]
3)Treatment of Acne Scars by Fractional Bipolar Radiofrequency Energy
7)Novel Technology in the Treatment of Acne Scars: The Matrix-tunable Radiofrequency Technology
I think this is the most interesting part of this post "When I asked a doctor with whom I have been treating about RF needling, he pretty much scoffed and called it junk science with more risks than reward - which took me by surprise."
-- Who is he sponsored by a device company, what devices does he use or believe in, does he give speechesoften. Often doctors push what they buy. Sometimes they are sponsored and as such only push that treatment.
There are no "good canidates" vs bad with rf needing, it is more operator dependent than candidatedependent. I am sure if you have auto immune and heal poorly and scar from any treatment your a bad canidate, but all skin types can be treated.
Risks have all been covered on these boards in detail and do no need a "paper" to discuss them. Too deep fat loss, to shallow tracks and longer healing time. Energy to high is actually bad as it can lead to longer down times, creeping up needles so no protection, and no spread (Reverse of what one things). Treatment must be done by observing the skin and it's thickness, and being a experiencedoperator, ... the unexpereinced screw it up.
The actual evidence behind scar treatments is generally of very bad quality and often with a low number of patients. One major flaw of almost all designed trials is that do not wait to include patients until 2 years after last active acne lesion (or not having controls). The presenceof PIE is a dead giveaway. Therefore most results presented in the studies are confoundedby the body's natural healing capabilities.
Studies on acne scars are very difficult. .This is because everyone will have a unique set of scars, namely a mixture of atrophic, rolling, box car, ice pick, hypertrophic scars etc... Now, add the variable of age, skin type (or Ethnic origin), the number of scars, - its almost impossible to recruit a large number of patients. Then follow up these patients over 2 years, and add the other variable- including recurrent acne, skin care topically, and any other 'incidental procedures' such as Botox and dermal fillers for aesthetics, and keep all these variables constant over a period of x years. Then one has the problem of ETHICS as @CLOODsuggested, keeping a control is important. This means not treating one side of the face (split face study, blinded assessor), and hold that for 2 years. No Western ethics will ever approve of that study. If that could be done, recruit > n = 100 patients, then follow up with blinded assessors, wow... that would be one great study! Imagine consenting to those variables as well. I wonder how many recruits one would have. Yes, we can all come up with ideal studies, but real World ethics and consents, thats a whole new story.
40 minutes ago, Obi wan said:keeping a control is important. This means not treating one side of the face
Personally, I would be pissed off if they only treated one side of my face--control or not. 
On 4/10/2018 at 1:17 PM, CLOOD said:One major flaw of almost all designed trials is that do not wait to include patients until 2 years after last active acne lesion
I suppose the age factor will play a big role, but how much improvement do you realistically expect from a patient after, say, 6 months post-op? Personally, I've detected little to no improvement after about 3-4 months after various treatments. Would waiting up to 2 years really make any significant comparison?