This paper is marked retracted in the scholarly record (OpenAlex). Interpret its findings with caution.
RETRACTION: High‐Powered 675‐nm Laser: Safety and Efficacy in Clinical Evaluation and In Vitro Evidence for Different Skin Disorders
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsDermatologic Treatments and Research · Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management · Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine
RETRACTION: M. D. F. Vitale, F. Madeddu, I. Fusco, L. Pieri, P. Bonan, T. Zingoni, G. Magni, and F. Rossi, “High‐Powered 675‐nm Laser: Safety and Efficacy in Clinical Evaluation and In Vitro Evidence for Different Skin Disorders,” Skin Research and Technology 30, no. 9 (2024): e70019, https://doi.org/10.1111/srt.70019.
The above article, published online on 29 August 2024 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between Skin Research and Technology; and John Wiley & Sons Ltd. The article was accepted for publication following an insufficient peer review process that does not meet the standards of the journal's peer review policy. As a result, the editorial team cannot vouch for the reliability of the study and its conclusions.
Furthermore, although the article states compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki, it has been determined that the research protocol underlying the study was not submitted to a research ethics committee for consideration before the research began. The authors state that ethical approval was not required for the research presented in the article in alignment with EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) 2017/745 as the device(s) used carried CE marking at the time of the study and no activity nor any additional invasive or burdensome procedures were carried outside the scope of the intended purpose.
This retraction is issued as administrative due diligence to correct the scholarly record and alert readers to these deficiencies in the publication process. The authors disagree with this decision.