Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30452511›Full record

Trial reportJAMA facial plastic surgery2019

Topical Tazarotene Gel, 0.1%, as a Novel Treatment Approach for Atrophic Postacne Scars: A Randomized Active-Controlled Clinical Trial.

T P Afra, Muhammed Razmi T, Tarun Narang, Sunil Dogra, Ashok Kumar

Registry-linked trialOpen access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA facial plastic surgery, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03170596 (Microneedling Versus Topical Tazarotene 0.1% Gel for the Treatment of Atrophic Post Acne Scarring - a Randomized Controlled Study), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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.

NCT03170596 nacompletednot on this map

Microneedling Versus Topical Tazarotene 0.1% Gel for the Treatment of Atrophic Post Acne Scarring - a Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorPost Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, ChandigarhRan2017 to 2018Enrolled36ConditionsAtrophic Post Acne ScarringArmstazarotene gel 0.1%, Microneedling
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. A Comprehensive Review of Non-Energy-Based Treatments for Atrophic Acne Scarring.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2022
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Microneedling for the Treatment of Scars: An Update for Clinicians.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2020
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

T P AfraDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Muhammed Razmi TDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Tarun NarangDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Sunil DograDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology, and Leprology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Ashok KumarNational Institute of Nursing Education, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

importanceEvidence is robust for the effectiveness of microneedle therapy in the management of postacne atrophic scarring. A home-based topical treatment with an efficacy comparable to microneedling would be a useful addition in the armamentarium of acne scar management.

objectiveTo compare the efficacy of topical tazarotene gel, 0.1%, with microneedling therapy in the management of moderate to severe atrophic acne scars. DESIGN, SETTING, AND

participantsProspective, observer-blinded, active-controlled, randomized clinical trial with 6 months of follow-up conducted between June 2, 2017, and February 28, 2018, at a tertiary care hospital in India. Thirty-six patients with grade 2 to 4 facial atrophic postacne scars and without a history of procedural treatment of acne scars within the previous year were recruited. Analyses were conducted using data from the evaluable population.

interventionsBoth halves of each participant's face were randomized to receive either microneedling or topical tazarotene therapy. Microneedling was conducted on 1 side of the face with a dermaroller having a needle length of 1.5 mm for a total of 4 sessions during the course of 3 months. Participants were instructed to apply topical tazarotene gel, 0.1%, to the other side of the face once every night during this same period. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months by a blinded observer, and improvements in acne scar severity based on Goodman and Baron quantitative and qualitative scores and a subjective independent dermatologist score (range, 0-10, with higher scores indicating better improvement) were assessed. Patient satisfaction was assessed using a patient global assessment score (ranging from 0 for no response to 10 for maximum improvement) at these follow-up visits.

resultsThere were 36 participants (13 men and 23 women; mean [range] age, 23.4 [18-30] years), and the median (interquartile range [IQR]) duration of acne was 6 (4-8) years. For the 34 participants included in the complete data analyses, the median (IQR) quantitative score for acne scar severity at the 6-month follow-up visit following treatment with either tazarotene (from a baseline of 8.0 [6.0-9.8] to 5.0 [3.0-6.0]) or microneedling (from a baseline of 7.0 [6.0-10.8] to 4.5 [3.0-6.0]) indicated significant improvement (P < .001) that was comparable for both treatments (median [IQR] change in severity score from baseline, 2.5 [2.0-4.0] vs 3.0 [2.0-4.0]; P = .42). By contrast, median qualitative acne scar scores were the same for both treatment groups at baseline and did not significantly change following either treatment. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The present clinical trial showed comparable outcomes of both treatments for the overall improvement of quantitative facial acne scar severity. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 1.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03170596.

Indexed as

Acne VulgarisAdministration, TopicalAdultAtrophyCicatrixCosmetic TechniquesDermatologic AgentsFemaleHumansIndiaMaleNeedlesNicotinic AcidsPilot ProjectsProspective StudiesRetinoidsDermatologic AgentsNicotinic AcidsRetinoidstazarotene

Identifiers

PMID30452511
PMCPMC6439800
OpenAlexW2900548398

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.