SynthesisBMJ open2018
Chemical peels for acne vulgaris: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04002024 (A Randomized Controlled Trial of Efficiency of Moisturizer Containing Licochalcone A, Decanediol, L-carnitine and Salicylic Acid in Reducing Relapsing of Acne in Thai Acne Subjects), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
A Randomized Controlled Trial of Efficiency of Moisturizer Containing Licochalcone A, Decanediol, L-carnitine and Salicylic Acid in Reducing Relapsing of Acne in Thai Acne Subjects
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Topical, light-based, and complementary interventions for acne: an overview of systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Procedural Treatments as Adjuncts in the Management of Acne Vulgaris: A Narrative Review.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Review
- Cosmetic Benefits of Medium-Depth Chemical Peels for Moderate Acne Lesions and Atrophic Acne Scars: A Single-Arm Clinical Trial in Young Adults.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Emerging Innovations in Acne Management: A Focus on Non-Pharmacological Therapeutic Devices.Journal of Korean medical science · 2025Review
- Acne vulgaris: advances in pathogenesis and prevention strategies.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2025Review
- A Comprehensive Bibliographic Review Concerning the Efficacy of Organic Acids for Chemical Peels Treating Acne Vulgaris.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- The Effectiveness of Pyruvic Acid Peeling in Improving the Quality of Life of Patients with Acne Vulgaris.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Paradigms in Complex Facial Scar Management.Seminars in plastic surgery · 2020Review
- Comparative Efficacy of Pharmacological and Nonpharmacological Interventions for Acne Vulgaris: A Network Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2020Review
- Medical Aesthetics - Current Trends and a Review of Its Applications.Indian dermatology online journalReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe evaluated current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) regarding the effectiveness of chemical peeling for treating acne vulgaris.
methodsStandard Cochrane methodological procedures were used. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and EMBASE via OvidSP through April 2017. Reviewers independently assessed eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data.
resultsTwelve RCTs (387 participants) were included. Effectiveness was not significantly different: trichloroacetic acid versus salicylic acid (SA) (percentage of total improvement: risk ratio (RR) 0.89; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.10), glycolic acid (GA) versus amino fruit acid (the reduction of inflammatory lesions: mean difference (MD), 0.20; 95% CI -3.03 to 3.43), SA versus pyruvic acid (excellent or good improvement: RR 1.11; 95% CI 0.73 to 1.69), GA versus SA (good or fair improvement: RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.85 to 1.18), GA versus Jessner's solution (JS) (self-reported improvements: RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.44 to 2.26), and lipohydroxy acid versus SA (reduction of non-inflammatory lesions: 55.6%vs48.5%, p=0.878). Combined SA and mandelic acid peeling was superior to GA peeling (percentage of improvement in total acne score: 85.3%vs68.5%, p<0.001). GA peeling was superior to placebo (excellent or good improvement: RR 2.30; 95% CI 1.40 to 3.77). SA peeling may be superior to JS peeling for comedones (reduction of comedones: 53.4%vs26.3%, p=0.001) but less effective than phototherapy for pustules (number of pustules: MD -7.00; 95% CI -10.84 to -3.16). LIMITATIONS: The methodological quality of the included RCTs was very low to moderate. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the significant clinical heterogeneity across studies.
conclusionCommonly used chemical peels appear to be similarly effective for mild-to-moderate acne vulgaris and well tolerated. However, based on current limited evidence, a robust conclusion cannot be drawn regarding any definitive superiority or equality among the currently used chemical peels. Well-designed RCTs are needed to identify optimal regimens.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.