ReviewCureus2023
Azelaic Acid Versus Hydroquinone for Managing Patients With Melasma: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Narrative Review of Skin and Pregnancy: Dermatologic Manifestations and Medication Management During Pregnancy.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Review
- A Comprehensive Review of Azelaic Acid Pharmacological Properties, Clinical Applications, and Innovative Topical Formulations.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Pathogenesis of Melasma Explained.International journal of dermatology · 2025Review
- In Vitro and In Vivo Assessment of an Innovative Peeling System with Azelaic and Tranexamic Acids for Targeted Hyperpigmentation Reduction.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Article
- An Update on New and Existing Treatments for the Management of Melasma.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Melasma, a commonly acquired hyperpigmentation skin condition, is usually treated with topical agents as the first line of management. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of azelaic acid versus hydroquinone in treating melasma patients. We conducted a comprehensive search across four online databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) from the time of their creation until May 28, 2023. We considered randomized controlled studies comparing hydroquinone with azelaic acid for the treatment of melasma patients. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2 to evaluate the risk of bias. The mean difference (MD) for continuous variables and the risk ratio (RR) for categorical variables, with a 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled. Six studies were included, with a total of 673 patients with melasma. The azelaic acid had a lower mean change in melasma area severity index (MASI) than the hydroquinone group [MD= -1.23, 95% CI (-2.05, -0.40), P=0.004]. No difference was observed regarding the improvement via the objective response scale, the reduction in pigmentation, or the adverse events reported. However, despite not being statistically significantly different, there was a trend towards having more good responses in the azelaic acid group. Azelaic acid may be better than hydroquinone in reducing melasma severity (measured by MASI). However, larger studies with long-term follow-up are needed to validate these findings.
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.