There were errors in a recent article of the Journal of Cosmetic Laser Therapy. These were in ‘Measurement of home-use laser and intense pulse light systems for hair removal: Preliminary report’ 2009;11:157–168, and are clarified below.
On page 164 of the Report; the layout of Figure 10: Fluence measurements of devices may mislead the lay-reader into believing the Fluence measured by the authors was zero, or near zero, regarding the Rio Scanning Laser. This is clearly inconsistent with the later Table I: Measurements made and data recorded for the home-use hair removal lasers and IPL devices evaluated in this study on page 164 which states that the Fluence was not measured for the Rio Scanning Laser.
We acknowledge that, in the hindsight, the Rio Scanning Laser should not have been included in Figure 10: Fluence measurements of devices or could have been included alongside a clear disclaimer that the Fluence had not been measured.
On page 164 of the Report; the layout of ‘Figure 10: Fluence measurements of devices and on page 165, the details of ‘Table I: Measurements made and data recorded for the home-use hair removal lasers and IPL devices evaluated in this study’, the values shown for the Rio Salon Laser (Dezac Group Limited, UK) are incorrect. The Rio Salon Laser does not have a Fluence of 0.09 J/cm2 but instead delivers Fluence considerably higher than this.
On page 166 of the Report; the comment ‘It should be noted that the area-illuminating LEDs produced a significant power compared to the laser output itself ” is misleading. The area-illuminating LEDs assessed using the Ophir power meter did produce a measurable power (total photon energy), but the authors acknowledge that the output wavelengths and energy of the area illuminating LEDs would have no impact on the function of the Rio Salon Laser or Rio Scanning Laser as hair removal devices.