ArticleDermatology research and practice2018
Efficacy and Safety of the Traditional Japanese Medicine Keigairengyoto in the Treatment of Acne Vulgaris.
Article in Dermatology research and practice, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Safety and Effectiveness of Oral Nutraceuticals for Treating Acne: A Systematic Review.JAMA dermatology · 2023Pooled it
- Polyphyllin I InhibitsEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Several traditional Japanese medicines including Keigairengyoto (KRT) are used to treat acne vulgaris, but there is no robust evidence of their effectiveness. In this study, we examined the effectiveness and safety of KRT in treating acne vulgaris. An open-label, randomized, parallel control group comparison was conducted with a conventional treatment group (adapalene and topical antibiotics; control group) and a KRT group (control treatment plus KRT). The test drugs were administered for 12 weeks to patients (15 to 64 years, outpatient) with inflammatory acne on their face, and the amount of acne at 2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks was measured. Sixty-four patients were enrolled; 29 patients in each group were included in the analysis. Twenty-eight patients in the control group and 24 patients in the KRT group were included in the efficacy analysis. The number of inflammatory skin rashes at 4 and 8 weeks in the KRT group was significantly decreased compared with the control group. There was no significant difference between the two groups in noninflammatory eruptions and general rashes. There were no serious adverse events in both groups. KRT may be a useful agent in patients with inflammatory acne in combination with conventional treatments. This trial is registered with UMIN 000014831.
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.