Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38751177›Full record

Trial reportActa dermato-venereologica2024

A Randomized Clinical Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of an Oral Probiotic in Acne Vulgaris.

Cristina Eguren, Ariadna Navarro-Blasco, Marina Corral-Forteza, Alejandra Reolid-Pérez, Núria Setó-Torrent, Alejandro García-Navarro, David Prieto-Merino, Eva Núñez-Delegido, Pedro Sánchez-Pellicer, Vicente Navarro-López

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Oral Probiotics inMedicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Lyophilized Cell-Free Supernatants ofLife (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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

10 authors.

Cristina EgurenDepartment of Dermatology, Eguren Dermatology and Aesthetics Clinic, Madrid, Spain.
Ariadna Navarro-BlascoDepartment of Dermatology, Dermatological and Aesthetic Center, Alicante, Spain.
Marina Corral-FortezaDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Sagrat Cor, Barcelona, Spain.
Alejandra Reolid-PérezDepartment of Dermatology, Eguren Dermatology and Aesthetics Clinic, Madrid, Spain.
Núria Setó-TorrentDepartment of Dermatology, University Hospital Sagrat Cor, Barcelona, Spain.
Alejandro García-NavarroDepartment of Dermatology, Dermatological and Aesthetic Center, Alicante, Spain.
David Prieto-MerinoFaculty of Medicine, University of Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain.
Eva Núñez-DelegidoFaculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain.
Pedro Sánchez-PellicerFaculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain.
Vicente Navarro-LópezFaculty of Medicine, Catholic University of Murcia (UCAM), Murcia, Spain; Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Vinalopó-Fisabio, Elche, Spain. vicente.navarro@bioithas.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The relevance of the gut microbiota in some skin inflammatory diseases, including acne vulgaris, has been emphasized. Probiotics could play a role in the modulation of the microbiota, improving the clinical course of this disease. A 12-week randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial with patients aged 12 to 30 years with acne vulgaris was conducted. The study product was a capsule composed of the probiotic Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (CECT 30031) and the cyanobacterium Arthrospira platensis (BEA_IDA_0074B). Patients with improvement in the Acne Global Severity Scale were 10/34 (29.41%) in the placebo group compared with 20/40 (50%) in the probiotic group (p = 0.03). A significant reduction (p = 0.03) in the number of non-inflammatory acne lesions was observed in the probiotic group (-18.60 [-24.38 to -12.82]) vs the placebo group (-10.54 [-17.43 to -3.66]). Regarding the number of total  lesions, a reduction almost reaching statistical significance (p = 0.06) was observed in the probiotic group (-27.94 [-36.35 to -19.53]) compared with the placebo group (-18.31 [-28.21 to -8.41]). In addition, patients with improvement attending the Global Acne Grading System were 7/34 (20.58%) in the placebo group vs 17/40 (42.50%) in the probiotic group (p = 0.02). The number of adverse events was similar in both groups. The probiotic used in this study was effective and well tolerated, and it should be considered for acne vulgaris patients.

Indexed as

Acne VulgarisLacticaseibacillus rhamnosusProbioticsAdministration, OralAdolescentAdultChildDouble-Blind MethodFemaleGastrointestinal MicrobiomeHumansMaleSeverity of Illness IndexTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID38751177
PMCPMC11110809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.