Evidence and a proposed algorithm for periprocedural treatment sequencing in melasma

INTRODUCTION

Melasma frequently recurs despite an initial response to treatment. Its biology includes altered melanocyte activity, photoaging-associated dermal changes and hormonal and environmental influences. These features help explain why pigment clearance and durable disease control are different outcomes.^1–3 Photoprotection and topical treatment remain central to management; procedures require particular care when inflammation could worsen pigmentation.⁴

In combination treatment, the practical question is often when to introduce or interrupt a component. A clinician may wish to establish topical tolerance before laser, separate injections from energy delivery, or continue maintenance after oral treatment ends. Each decision has a rationale, but a plausible rationale does not establish an optimal interval. Adding a procedure also introduces cost, discomfort and pigmentary risk.⁴

We review the evidence relevant to a specified sequence of medical treatment, intradermal NCTF 135 HA and fractional 1064-nm picosecond laser. The aim is to identify which decisions are supported directly and which require testing. A previous review by Bigge addressed low-dose oral tranexamic acid and thromboembolic risk assessment.⁵ The present article concentrates on treatment sequencing, the additional value of procedures and the limits of transferring results between devices and injection methods.

REVIEW APPROACH

This focused narrative review used an author-supplied collection of melasma publications, supplemented by targeted searches for PubMed-indexed reports and checks of publisher and manufacturer sources on 12 September 2026. Searches combined melasma with picosecond laser, hyaluronic acid or NCTF, azelaic acid, oral tranexamic acid and thromboembolism, or tinted photoprotection and iron oxide. Exact article titles and digital object identifiers were also checked. Manufacturer material was used to identify devices and delivery routes, not to establish clinical efficacy.

The present study prioritized randomized and comparative studies, systematic reviews and consensus reports relevant to the proposed components. Small uncontrolled reports were retained where direct combination evidence was sparse. Interpretation considered sample size, comparator, wavelength, optics, formulation, administration route, timing, follow-up and consistency of reporting. Findings from other laser indications or skin-quality studies were treated as indirect evidence. No quantitative pooling or formal certainty grading was performed. The search was selective and was not designed to produce a complete systematic-review study count. Table 1 summarizes the evidence most directly affecting sequencing decisions.

Evidence is summarized qualitatively; these categories are not formal certainty grades. mMASI, modified Melasma Area and Severity Index; NCTF, NCTF 135 HA. Sources are cited within the table.

ESTABLISHING MEDICAL TREATMENT BEFORE PROCEDURES

Photoprotection from the outset

Broad-spectrum ultraviolet protection and protection against visible light address continuing exposure throughout treatment and maintenance. Iron oxides can provide visible-light attenuation that is not captured by the sun protection factor (SPF) alone.^6,7 In a randomized trial of 68 patients receiving hydroquinone, sunscreen with ultraviolet and visible-light protection produced greater improvement than ultraviolet-only sunscreen over eight weeks; 61 patients completed follow-up.⁸

The effect depends on the endpoint and formulation. In a later randomized study of 42 participants, both tinted and untinted sunscreens improved modified Melasma Area and Severity Index (mMASI) scores, without a significant difference between groups. Tinted sunscreen provided additional benefit in measures of color uniformity.⁹ Thus, the proposal specifies daily tinted iron-oxide-containing SPF 50+ with adequate ultraviolet A protection, alongside reapplication and exposure reduction. It does not assume that all tinted products perform identically or that sunscreen alone eliminates recurrence.

Azelaic acid and the decision to add laser

Azelaic acid 20% is a topical option when sustained treatment is desired. Reviews support improvement in melasma, although comparisons with hydroquinone vary in outcome measures and trial quality.^10,11 Its inclusion in this sequence does not establish superiority over other accepted topical regimens. Local irritation is relevant because it can interfere with adherence and complicate assessment around a procedure.

Lai et al. provide a useful test of whether a procedure adds benefit. Thirty participants entered a randomized split-face trial of azelaic acid 20% twice daily, with three 755-nm picosecond treatments added to one side after a four-week topical lead-in. Twenty-seven completed follow-up. Both sides improved, but the laser-treated side showed no additional clinical mMASI benefit. Four participants developed post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation after laser; the investigators reduced subsequent energy settings.¹² This finding supports reassessing the medical response before committing to laser. It does not validate a six-week lead-in, a three-day pause, or a day-four restart.

Oral tranexamic acid in selected patients

Oral tranexamic acid (TXA) 250 mg twice daily has placebo-controlled evidence for melasma. In the trial by Del Rosario et al., 44 patients were enrolled and 39 completed the study. At three months, mMASI decreased by 49% with TXA and 18% with placebo; some benefit was lost after treatment stopped.¹³ Expert consensus describes this dose and recommends clinical thrombotic-risk assessment, baseline coagulation testing and further investigation according to risk.¹⁴

Risk assessment should address previous thrombosis, known thrombophilia, thrombotic family history, systemic estrogen exposure, smoking, immobility, planned surgery, renal disease, and pregnancy or breastfeeding. A normal coagulation screen cannot by itself establish eligibility. Off-label use, alternatives and remaining uncertainty should be discussed.^5,14 A melasma-specific matched cohort reported no increased thromboembolic risk after excluding major risk factors, whereas a broader TXA-exposure cohort reported an association with thromboembolism. Their populations and exposure definitions differ, limiting direct application to a 250-mg twice-daily melasma course.^15,16

TXA is therefore conditional on individual assessment and reassessment, rather than an automatic requirement for anyone considering laser. The proposed stop at week sixteen is a schedule choice, not an established optimal duration. A detailed review of TXA pharmacology and risk stratification is available elsewhere.⁵

What fractional picosecond laser can add

Picosecond-laser studies cannot be treated as a single interchangeable intervention. Wavelength, pulse duration, fractional optics, spot dimensions and session frequency vary considerably.¹⁷ A randomized comparison favored nonfractional 1064-nm picosecond treatment over 755-nm picosecond laser or 2% hydroquinone, while a separate split-face trial found similar efficacy between 1064-nm picosecond and nanosecond treatment, with differences in tolerability.^18,19 Neither study defines settings for every fractional microlens array.

Evidence specific to fractional 1064-nm treatment includes a small randomized comparison with and without a microlens array and prospective studies using different numbers of sessions.^20–22 These reports justify investigating fractional delivery, but do not determine that two sessions, four weeks apart, are sufficient. Nor do they establish the proposed pulse-energy escalation or overlap for the platform described below.

Durability and pigmentary harm remain clinically relevant. In a split-face comparison of 755-nm picosecond laser with a diffractive lens array and 1064-nm Q-switched laser, 10 of 17 patients reported recurrence or exacerbation at two years.²³ A separate case series documented hypopigmentation after picosecond treatment.²⁴ Accordingly, short follow-up and a report of no adverse events in a small sample cannot establish long-term safety.

The proposed procedural sequence is intended for persistent melasma after an adequate medical trial and reassessment of diagnosis, adherence and irritation. Patients who improve satisfactorily with medical treatment have no demonstrated need to progress through every procedural step. Active inflammation, changing pigmentation or incomplete recovery should prompt reassessment before further exposure.^3,4

Intradermal hyaluronic acid formulations

Direct evidence and differences in administration

Microneedling-assisted topical therapy, intradermal injection and post-laser application expose tissue differently. A meta-analysis of microneedling as an adjunct to topical melasma therapies and a review of mesotherapy found heterogeneous agents and methods.^25,26 These findings cannot establish the efficacy of a particular injectable formulation at a specified depth.

The most directly relevant NCTF trial compared 755-nm alexandrite picosecond laser alone with laser plus NCTF 135 HA in 31 participants, allocated to groups of 12 and 19. The combination group showed greater reported pigmentation improvement, but the small sample, unequal groups and short follow-up restrict interpretation. NCTF was administered after laser using a micropapular technique. Reporting of recurrence also differs: the abstract states statistical significance, whereas the main results give p=0.053.²⁷ We therefore regard this as preliminary support for further comparison, without adopting its recurrence claim as proof of prevention.

Zou et al reported a retrospective series of 30 women treated with fractional picosecond laser and a different sodium hyaluronate composite. Mean Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) decreased from 18.30 to 8.20, but there was no control group. The methods place injection two weeks after laser, and the reported primary assessment was four weeks after the final treatment.²⁸ This sequence and product differ from NCTF fourteen days before laser. A six-patient report of hyaluronic acid with antioxidant ingredients after a plateau in laser-toning response is also uncontrolled.²⁹ Finally, a randomized study of a hyaluronic acid micro-filler evaluated wrinkles and skin quality; it supplies indirect evidence rather than a melasma treatment comparison.³⁰

Why the proposed interval remains a hypothesis

The proposed fourteen-day pre-laser interval allows recovery from intradermal treatment before energy delivery. No retrieved comparative study established that this ordering is superior to post-laser injection, same-day treatment, or omitting the injectable. It also remains unknown whether any benefit would arise from hyaluronic acid, another ingredient, the injection process, or accompanying care. Terms such as dermal repair or priming describe a proposed rationale; they should not be used as measured outcomes without corresponding data.

The product and route require precise identification. NCTF 135 HA is an injectable formulation; manufacturer descriptions distinguish it from similarly named products intended for topical use. The U225 is an intradermal injector.^31,32 In the present proposal, product is delivered through the needle into the skin. This is intradermal injection, not topical application followed by microneedling. Melasma benefit from this exact product, route and schedule remains to be established.

RECOVERY AND MAINTENANCE

Temporary interruption of an irritating topical agent is a practical choice around a procedure. The proposed three-day pre-laser pause and restart from day four are intended to permit recovery, with actual resumption dependent on intact, comfortable skin. Evidence from the azelaic-acid split-face trial does not establish those dates.¹²

Evidence for corticosteroid prophylaxis is indirect. A split-face trial after ablative fractional carbon dioxide resurfacing found less post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation with a short course of clobetasol than with petrolatum alone.³³ A network meta-analysis pooled preventive measures across different laser and energy-device settings, including corticosteroids and cooling.³⁴ These findings do not establish methylprednisolone aceponate for three days after this fractional picosecond protocol. Supportive care recommendations favor attention to barrier function and procedure-specific recovery.³⁵

The proposed aftercare is once-daily methylprednisolone aceponate for three days, no routine cooling, and barrier products as needed. Comparative evidence for this exact regimen is lacking. Clinically indicated care takes priority, with changes and their reasons recorded.

Maintenance continues after the procedural phase because improvement does not remove the tendency to relapse.^2,3 Daily tinted photoprotection and azelaic acid 20% twice daily, as tolerated, form the proposed maintenance regimen. The duration of response after TXA cessation should be measured separately from the response while TXA is being taken. Persistent topical irritation requires adjustment rather than adherence to an inflexible dosing target.

A specified sequence for evaluation

Table 2 sets out the candidate sequence. Day 0 denotes initiation of the proposed medical regimen; it is not a date inferred from a patient record. The medical lead-in is six weeks. Intradermal NCTF sessions are planned at weeks four and eight, followed by laser at weeks six and ten. The full combination is an investigational proposal. Evidence for photoprotection or TXA does not establish the necessity of its injectable or laser components.

Table 3 specifies the candidate procedural settings. The named laser platform has manufacturer-described 300-ps pulses, a 1064-nm wavelength option and a fractional handpiece.³⁶ The fixed fractional microlens array, 6-Hz repetition rate, painting application and approximately 40% overlap are the authors' proposed configuration. They are not comparative-study-derived optimal settings. The injector is specified as U225, with a nominal needle depth of 2 mm and 3 ml of NCTF 135 HA per session, subject to anatomical suitability and the applicable product instructions.

Source: the authors' proposed schedule, informed by the evidence discussed in the text. It is not an observed patient timeline or a validated optimum. Day 0 is medical treatment initiation. The alternative same-day NCTF-plus-laser approach, with azelaic acid restart no earlier than day seven, is outside this sequence and is also unvalidated. SPF, sun protection factor; TXA, tranexamic acid.

Day 0 is initiation of the candidate medical regimen. Procedure dates depend on continuing indication and clinical recovery. The NCTF component, exact intervals, energy progression and aftercare choices require prospective evaluation. The diagram presents a proposal and contains no clinical results. Detailed settings and limitations are given in Tables 2 and 3. NCTF, NCTF 135 HA; SPF, sun protection factor; TXA, tranexamic acid; UVA, ultraviolet A. Original diagram by Stefan Bigge and Alexander Kozlowski; prepared with SVG and Sharp, with TIFF export using pillow.

Source: the authors' proposed configuration; supporting device identification is cited. These specifications are candidates for evaluation and are not a claim of universal settings, manufacturer endorsement, or safety across skin phototypes. Brand names identify the intended configuration and do not imply superiority.

The proposed laser progression is 225 mJ for the first pass and 250 mJ for the second. A third pass at 275 mJ is conditional on absent subtle erythema after pass two and an otherwise acceptable tissue response. Treatment should stop earlier if the endpoint is reached or concerning signs appear. Marked erythema, whitening, blistering or unexpected pain should not be pursued as a target. Pulse energy must be recorded in mJ; conversion to fluence requires the relevant illuminated area and optical configuration. A displayed energy value alone does not establish exposure at each microbeam or permit transfer to another handpiece.

Figure 1 summarizes the sequence and decisions to defer treatment. Each actual session must retain its wavelength, handpiece, settings, passes, total shot count, treated area and endpoint. A change to 532 nm, a different device or another administration route is a different exposure that requires explicit reporting. The proposed sequence is sufficiently specified to support protocol development, but local device instructions, risk assessment and study governance remain necessary before prospective use.

QUESTIONS FOR CLINICAL EVALUATION

A study should first establish whether the procedural sequence adds clinically worthwhile benefit to optimized medical treatment. The specific incremental effect of NCTF requires a comparator that receives the same medical treatment and laser without NCTF. A favorable outcome after the complete combination cannot isolate any one component.

A written protocol should define eligibility, recruitment, permissible treatment changes and a primary endpoint before data collection. A validated severity measure such as mMASI provides a stronger basis for assessment than satisfaction alone.³⁷ This study proposes assessments before medical treatment, immediately before each procedure, after the procedural phase and at prespecified follow-up after TXA cessation. Follow-up at six and twelve months after the second laser would assess durability; these are proposed assessment times, not outcomes reported here.

Photography should use consistent equipment, lighting, positioning and framing. Images should be obtained without makeup or freshly applied tinted sunscreen. Capture time should be recorded separately from satisfaction assessments and treatment time, particularly for photographs taken on a procedure day. Blinded assessment, where feasible, would reduce expectation bias. Clinically justified deviations, withdrawals, missing observations, lack of response and adverse effects should remain visible in the analysis, with denominators stated for each endpoint.

A prospective assignment to this sequence for evaluation can meet the definition of an interventional clinical trial even without a concurrent control group. The applicable ethics review and prospective registration should therefore be addressed before enrollment.³⁸ The publication of this review neither supplies that approval nor establishes clinical validation of the proposed combination.

Limitations

This review uses a selective evidence base and does not provide pooled effect estimates or a formal certainty assessment. Small samples, different optical systems, heterogeneous injection formulations and short follow-up limit transfer between studies. Manufacturer information identifies equipment and products but cannot resolve clinical effectiveness. The proposed timing and settings have not been validated as a complete sequence in a controlled study identified by this review.

CONCLUSION

Photoprotection, topical treatment and selected use of oral TXA provide the medical basis for this proposal. The additional benefit of fractional picosecond laser depends on the comparator and treatment setting, while evidence for intradermal NCTF remains preliminary. The specified sequence makes its timing and procedural assumptions explicit. Its value should be tested through a defined comparison, complete documentation of actual exposures and follow-up after oral treatment ends.

Declaration

Microsoft CoPilot as part of Microsoft Word was used for spelling control. The authors retain responsibility for the interpretation, accuracy and final approved text. No external sponsor supported this assistance.

Funding: No funding sources

Conflict of interest: None declared

Ethical approval: Not required

REFERENCES

1. 1. Passeron T, Picardo M. Melasma, a photoaging disorder. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res. 2018;31(4):461-5.
2. 2. McKesey J, Tovar-Garza A, Pandya AG. Melasma treatment: an evidence-based review. Am J Clin Dermatol. 2020;21(2):173-225.
3. 3. Sarkar R, Desai SR, Sinha S, Dogra S, Arellano‐Mendoza MI, Ailawadi P, et al. Delphi consensus on melasma management by international experts and pigmentary disorders society. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2026;40(4):680-92.
4. 4. Desai SR, Alexis AF, Elbuluk N, Grimes PE, Weiss J, Hamzavi IH, et al. Best practices in the treatment of melasma with a focus on patients with skin of color. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2024;90(2):269-79.
5. 5. Bigge S. Low-dose oral tranexamic acid for melasma: a narrative review and practical thromboembolic risk assessment framework. Int J Res Dermatol. 2026;12(5):525-32.
6. 6. Lyons AB, Trullas C, Kohli I, Hamzavi IH, Lim HW. Photoprotection beyond ultraviolet radiation: a review of tinted sunscreens. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021;84(5):1393-7.
7. 7. Morgado-Carrasco D, Piquero-Casals J, Granger C, Trullàs C, Passeron T. Melasma: the need for tailored photoprotection to improve clinical outcomes. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2022;38(6):515-21.
8. 8. Castanedo-Cazares JP, Hernandez-Blanco D, Carlos-Ortega B, Fuentes-Ahumada C, Torres-Álvarez B. Near-visible light and UV photoprotection in the treatment of melasma: a double-blind randomized trial. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2014;30:35-42.
9. 9. Polena H, Queille-Roussel C, Graizeau C, Duteil L, Sayag M, Passeron T. Comparison of visible light-protective tinted sunscreen to untinted sunscreen to protect melasma patients during summer: a prospective randomized investigator-blinded study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2025;24(10):e70450.
10. 10. King S, Campbell J, Rowe R, Daly ML, Moncrieff G, Maybury C. A systematic review to evaluate the efficacy of azelaic acid in the management of acne, rosacea, melasma and skin aging. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2023;22(10):2650-62.
11. 11. Albzea W, AlRashidi R, Alkandari D, Sadan M, Alkandari A, Alkanderi JJ, et al. Azelaic acid versus hydroquinone for managing patients with melasma: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Cureus. 2023;15(7):e41796.
12. 12. Lai D, Cheng S, Zhou S, Hao J, Chen H, Jia K, et al. 755-nm picosecond laser plus topical 20% azelaic acid compared to topical 20% azelaic acid alone for the treatment of melasma: a randomized, split-face and controlled trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2024;39:113.
13. 13. Del Rosario E, Florez-Pollack S, Zapata L Jr, Hernandez K, Tovar-Garza A, Rodrigues M, et al. Randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind study of oral tranexamic acid in the treatment of moderate-to-severe melasma. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018;78(2):363-9.
14. 14. Sarkar R, Narayan R, Vinay K, Lakhani R, Sinha S, Mysore V, et al. Prescribing practices of tranexamic acid for melasma: Delphi consensus from the Pigmentary Disorders Society. Indian J Dermatol Venereol Leprol. 2024;90(1):41-5.
15. 15. Hernandez T, Penny K, Culotta N. Oral tranexamic acid use for melasma is not associated with thromboembolism: findings from a multicenter propensity score-matched electronic health record cohort. JAAD Int. 2026;24:64-6.
16. 16. Hopson ARL, Lipner SR. Increased risk of thromboembolic events with oral tranexamic acid in a large retrospective cohort using TriNetX. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2026;94(4):1283-5.
17. 17. Feng J, Shen S, Song X, Xiang W. Efficacy and safety of picosecond laser for the treatment of melasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci. 2023;38(1):84.
18. 18. Liang S, Shang S, Zhang W, Tan A, Zhou B, Mei X, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of picosecond Nd:YAG laser (1,064 nm), picosecond alexandrite laser (755 nm) and 2% hydroquinone cream in the treatment of melasma: a randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial. Front Med (Lausanne). 2023;10:1132823.
19. 19. Feng J, Huang L. Comparison of picosecond and nanosecond Nd:YAG 1064-nm lasers in the treatment of melasma: a split-face randomized clinical trial. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023;151(4):772-7.
20. 20. Wu X, Wang X, Lin X, Shang Y, Cen Q, Zhang Z. Efficacy and safety of low-fluence 1064 nm picosecond laser with/without micro-lens arrays for melasma treatment: a randomized, split-face controlled study. Lasers Med Sci. 2025;40(1):387.
21. 21. Wong CSM, Chan MWM, Shek SYN, Yeung CK, Chan HHL. Fractional 1064 nm picosecond laser in treatment of melasma and skin rejuvenation in Asians: a prospective study. Lasers Surg Med. 2021;53(8):1032-42.
22. 22. Bernstein EF, Basilavecchio LD, Wang J. Melasma treatment with a 1064 nm, picosecond-domain laser with a fractionated multibeam lens array. Lasers Surg Med. 2023;55:801-8.
23. 23. Zhou Y, Li Y, Hamblin MR, Wen X. Comparison of 755-nm picosecond alexandrite laser versus 1064-nm Q-switched Nd:YAG laser for melasma: a randomized, split-face controlled, 2-year follow-up study. Lasers Surg Med. 2024;56:263-9.
24. 24. Hang X, Lim DS. Hypopigmentation following picosecond laser treatment for melasma: a case series. Lasers Surg Med. 2025;57(10):777-87.
25. 25. Bailey AJM, Li HOY, Tan MG, Cheng W, Dover JS. Microneedling as an adjuvant to topical therapies for melasma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2022;86(4):797-810.
26. 26. Khalili M, Amiri R, Iranmanesh B, Zartab H, Aflatoonian M. Safety and efficacy of mesotherapy in the treatment of melasma: a review article. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022;21:118-29.
27. 27. Chebotareva Y, Ilina T, Akulinina I, Tonakanyan B, Kondratieva T, Khlevchuk T. Efficacy of Alexandrite picosecond laser therapy with and without dermal polyrevitalisation (NCTF® 135 HA) in patients with melasma: a randomised controlled trial. Clin Ter. 2026;177(3):395-404.
28. 28. Zou M, Liu C, Sun M, Guo Q, Yang Y, Du J, et al. Efficacy and safety of picosecond laser combined with sodium hyaluronate for melasma. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2026;14(4):e7654.
29. 29. Yip DLK. A pilot study on the use of a non-crosslinked hyaluronic acid with associated antioxidant ingredients to improve the effectiveness of Nd:YAG laser toning in the treatment of melasma in six patients. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020;19:2212-8.
30. 30. Fanian F, Deutsch JJ, Bousquet MT, Boisnic S, Andre P, Catoni I, et al. A hyaluronic acid-based micro-filler improves superficial wrinkles and skin quality: a randomized prospective controlled multicenter study. J Dermatolog Treat. 2023;34(1):2216323.
31. 31. FILLMED. NCTF revitalisation. Available at: https://uk.fillmed.com/nctf/. Accessed 12 September 2026.
32. 32. Needle Concept. U225 intradermal injector. Available at: https://www.needleconcept.fr/en-gb/u225. Accessed 12 September 2026.
33. 33. Cheyasak N, Manuskiatti W, Maneeprasopchoke P, Wanitphakdeedecha R. Topical corticosteroids minimise the risk of postinflammatory hyperpigmentation after ablative fractional CO₂ laser resurfacing in Asians. Acta Derm Venereol. 2015;95(2):214-8.
34. 34. Wongdama S, Yenyuwadee S, Li JB, Saokaew S, Kanchanasurakit S, Manuskiatti W. Interventions to prevent postinflammatory hyperpigmentation after laser and energy-based device treatments: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Lasers Surg Med. 2026;58(3):157-68.
35. 35. Amici JM, Cogrel O, Jourdan M, Raimbault C, Canchy L, Kerob D, et al. Expert recommendations on supportive skin care for non-surgical and surgical procedures. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2023;37(Suppl 3):16-33.
36. 36. Intros Medical Laser. Pico:premium Pikosekundenlaser. Available at: https://www.intros.de/de/laser-produkte/medizinische-laser/pico-premium-pikosekundenlaser~p194. Accessed 12 September 2026.
37. 37. Pandya AG, Hynan LS, Bhore R, Riley FC, Guevara IL, Grimes P, et al. Reliability assessment and validation of the Melasma Area and Severity Index (MASI) and a new modified MASI scoring method. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2011;64(1):78-83.e1-2.
38. 38. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trials. Available at: https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/clinical-trial-registration.html. Accessed 12 September 2026.