Evidence map›Paper›PMID 15266533›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2004

Combined oral contraceptive pills for treatment of acne.

A O Arowojolu, M F Gallo, D A Grimes, S E Garner

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. The use of hormonal contraceptives in high performance Brazilian female swimmers: a cross-sectional study.Revista brasileira de ginecologia e obstetricia : revista da Federacao Brasileira das Sociedades de Ginecologia e Obstetricia · 2025
    Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. How to measure "short-term hormonal effects"?Obstetrics and gynecology international · 2009
    Article
  6. Acne.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2006
    Review
  7. [Systemic acne therapy].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2005
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

A O Arowojolu
M F Gallo
D A Grimes
S E Garner
Family Health International 360 · USNational Institute for Health and Care Excellence · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcne is a common skin disorder among women. Although no uniform approach to the management of acne exists, combination oral contraceptives (COCs), which contain an estrogen and a progestin, often are prescribed for women.

objectivesTo determine the effectiveness of COCs for the treatment of facial acne compared to placebo or other active therapies. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the computerized databases Cochrane Skin Group trial register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, POPLINE, Biological Abstracts and LILACS for randomized controlled trials of COCs and acne. We wrote to authors of identified trials to seek any unpublished or published trials that we might have missed. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomized controlled trials reported in any language that compare the effectiveness of a COC containing an estrogen and a progestin to placebo or another active therapy for acne in women were eligible. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on total and specific (i.e. open or closed comedones, papules, pustules and nodules) facial lesion counts; acne severity grades; global assessments by the clinician or the participant and discontinuation due to adverse events. Data were entered and analyzed in RevMan 4.2. MAIN

resultsThe search yielded five placebo-controlled trials that made three different comparisons and 14 trials that made nine comparisons between two COC regimens. An additional trial compared a COC to an antibiotic. COCs reduced acne lesion counts, severity grades and self-assessed acne compared to placebo. Differences in the comparative effectiveness of COCs containing varying progestin types and dosages, though, were less clear. COCs that contained chlormadinone acetate or cyproterone acetate improved acne better than levonorgestrel although this apparent advantage was based on limited data. A COC with cyproterone acetate might result in better acne outcomes than one with desogrestrel; however, the three studies comparing these COCs produced conflicting results. Likewise, levonorgestrel showed a slight improvement over desogestrel in acne outcomes in one trial, but a second trial found no difference between the COCs. REVIEWERS'

conclusionsThe three COCs evaluated in placebo-controlled trials are effective in reducing inflammatory and non-inflammatory facial acne lesions. Few differences were found in acne effectiveness between COC types. How COCs compare to alternative acne treatments is unknown since limited data were available regarding this question.

Indexed as

Acne VulgarisContraceptives, Oral, CombinedFemaleHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicContraceptives, Oral, Combined

Identifiers

PMID15266533
OpenAlexW4241583440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.