Trial reportSkin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)2024
Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy and safety of cross-linked and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid in combination with botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of atrophic acne scars: A double-blind randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synthetic Dermal Fillers in Treating Acne Scars: A Comparative Systematic Review.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2025Pooled it
- Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy and safety of cross-linked and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid in combination with botulinum toxin type A in the treatment of atrophic acne scars: A double-blind randomized clinical trial.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2024Trial
- A Holistic Skin Management Approach of CTMP Improved Skin Texture in Patient With Acne Scarring: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Exploring the Therapeutic Potential of Botulinum Toxin in Treating Post-Acne Sequelae: A Critical Review.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Review
- A Prospective, Multicenter, Randomized, Assessor-Blinded Study Assessing the Efficacy and Safety of Injectable Non-Cross-Linked Hyaluronic Acid for Improving Facial Skin Rejuvenation.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Injectable Fillers for Atrophic Acne Scars: A Systematic Review of Mechanisms, Evidence, and Clinical Algorithms.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Review
- Periorbital Swellings Associated with Neurotoxin Injections.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcne vulgaris is a common skin condition that affects a significant percentage of adolescents, with scarring being one of its permanent complications. This study aims to compare the efficacy and safety of using botulinum toxin type A (BTA) in combination with cross-linked and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid (HA) for the treatment of atrophic acne scars.
methodOur study is a randomized, double-blind clinical trial conducted on 16 patients with atrophic acne scars. The patients were randomly assigned to one of two groups: one group received a single session of BTA and crossed link HA combination, while the other group received two sessions of BTA and non-crossed link HA, 1 month apart. The patients were followed up at 3 and 6 months after baseline to evaluate the number and area of fine and large pores and spots, scar grading, patient satisfaction, and complications.
resultsThe mean age of individuals in both the cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA groups was 32.75 ± 4.26 and 31.50 ± 8.48 years, respectively (p = 0.71). In terms of gender, three (37.5%) and seven (87.5%) individuals in the cross-linked and non-cross-linked HA groups were female, respectively (p = 0.11). There were no significant differences in the count and area of fine and large pores and spots between the two groups at baseline and the first follow-up session. However, in the second follow-up session, the non-cross-linked HA group had significantly better results than the cross-linked HA group in terms of large pores count and area (p = 0.01). In terms of changes over time, the non-cross-linked HA group showed significantly better improvements in the count and area of large pores compared to the cross-linked HA group (p = 0.03). Additionally, both groups experienced a significant decrease in the count and area of fine pores over time (p = 0.001), but the amount of changes was not statistically significant between the two groups (p = 0.06). Concerning acne grade, initially, 62.5% and 12.5% of cases in the cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA groups, respectively, had severe grades. However, in the last session, these percentages significantly decreased to 0% for both groups (p = 0.002 and 0.005, respectively). In terms of treatment complications, none of the patients experienced any adverse effects.
conclusionThe study demonstrated that both cross-linked HA and non-cross-linked HA were effective in reducing acne severity and improving the appearance of pores and spots. The treatments had similar effects on fine pores, spots, and overall acne severity. However, non-cross-linked HA appeared to have a better result on large pores compared to cross-linked HA.
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.