<p>This response addresses the commentary by Dr. Moghadam regarding our systematic review and meta-analysis comparing Er:Glass and CO₂ lasers for atrophic acne scars. We clarify several methodological considerations to reinforce the validity of our findings. First, while laser parameters across included studies were not identical, they represent standard clinical ranges and were restricted to prospective randomized trials to ensure comparability. Second, we highlight the significance of the split-face design utilized in the majority of our included studies, which inherently controls for individual baseline variability and maximizes evidence quality. Regarding scar morphology, we contend that stratification by severity and Fitzpatrick skin types (III–IV) effectively minimized heterogeneity where specific subtype data were unavailable. Furthermore, we defend the use of standardized dermatologist-led 4-point assessment scales as a consistent clinical measure and justify the 3–6 month follow-up period as a reliable window for observing significant collagen remodeling and the resolution of adverse effects. This response underscores our commitment to synthesizing high-quality evidence, maintaining that our meta-analysis provides a robust foundation for comparing these two laser modalities in clinical practice.</p><p><i>Level of Evidence V</i>&#xa0;This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors&#xa0;<a href="http://www.springer.com/00266">www.springer.com/00266</a>.</p>