Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34816133›Full record

ArticleJAAD international2021

Identifying gaps and providing recommendations to address shortcomings in the investigation of acne sequelae by the Personalising Acne: Consensus of Experts panel.

Alison Layton, Andrew Alexis, Hilary Baldwin, Stefan Beissert, Vincenzo Bettoli, James Del Rosso, Brigitte Dréno, Linda Stein Gold, Julie Harper, Charles Lynde and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAAD international, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. What's New After NICE Acne Guidelines.Dermatology and therapy · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Management of Acne Vulgaris With Trifarotene.Journal of cutaneous medicine and surgery
    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

13 authors.

Alison LaytonHull York Medical School, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
Andrew AlexisWeill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York.
Hilary BaldwinRobert Wood Johnson Medical Center, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
Stefan BeissertDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, Dresden, Germany.
Vincenzo BettoliDermatology Unit - Teaching Hospital, Azienda Ospedaliera, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
James Del RossoThomas Dermatology, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Brigitte DrénoDermato-cancérology Department, CHU Nantes, University of Nantes, Nantes, France.
Linda Stein GoldHenry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan.
Julie HarperDermatology and Skin Care Center of Birmingham, Birmingham, Alabama.
Charles LyndeDepartment of Medicine, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Diane ThiboutotDepartment of Dermatology, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, Philadelphia.
Jonathan WeissGeorgia Dermatology Partners, Snellville, Georgia.
Jerry TanWindsor Clinical Research Inc, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe physical sequelae of acne include erythema, hyperpigmentation, and scarring, which are highly burdensome for patients. Early, effective treatment can potentially limit and prevent sequelae development, but there is a need for guidance for and evidence of prevention-oriented management to improve patient outcomes.

objectiveTo identify unmet needs of acne sequelae and generate expert recommendations to address gaps in clinical guidance.

methodsThe Personalizing Acne: Consensus of Experts panel of 13 dermatologists used a modified Delphi approach to achieve a consensus on the clinical aspects of acne sequelae. A consensus was defined as ≥75% of the dermatologists voting "agree" or "strongly agree." All voting was electronic and blinded.

resultsThe panel identified gaps in current guidance and made recommendations related to acne sequelae. These included identification and classification of sequelae, pertinent points to consider for patient consultations, and management aimed at reducing the development of sequelae. LIMITATIONS: The recommendations are based on expert opinion and made in the absence of high-quality evidence.

conclusionsThe identified gaps should help inform future research and guideline development for acne sequelae. The consensus-based recommendations should also support the process of consultations throughout the patient journey, helping to reduce the development and burden of acne sequelae through improved risk factor recognition, early discussion, and appropriate management.

Indexed as

acne-induced hyperpigmentationacne-induced macular erythemaacne scarringacne sequelaeconsensusDelphi processPACE, Personalising Acne: Consensus of Expertspostinflammatory erythemapostinflammatory hyperpigmentation

Identifiers

PMID34816133
PMCPMC8593750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.