ReviewThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2025
The Efficacy of Complementary and Alternative Medicines in Medical Dermatology: A Comprehensive Review.
Review in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, there has been a widespread patient use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) for dermatological application, despite few RCT-level studies on these supplements. This creates a barrier for dermatologists and others in counseling patients who may be using or might be tempted to use these CAM agents. This review investigates various CAM modalities used by patients for medical dermatology, exploring their efficacy and toxicity profiles. Methods: A comprehensive review was performed on the effectiveness of several CAMs utilized in medical dermatology by patients. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Cochrane. Results: Most CAM modalities had statistically insignificant results, and for agents that had significant results in efficacy, these studies were questionable with flawed designs and methodologies. Conclusion: These CAM supplements have promising potential in dermatologic use and are deserving of further investigation in well-crafted RCT-level studies. A more practical focus in future studies should involve a comparison of CAM agents to conventional therapies either alone or in an integrative fashion. This would accurately represent how these agents will be used clinically by actual patients and will be more helpful to clinicians. In the meantime, dermatologists should be aware of bias in published studies demonstrating the effectiveness of certain CAM modalities, and their corresponding toxicity. By doing so, physicians act as a valuable resource to patients who would like to explore various CAM products, better guiding patient interactions and treatment with improved patient outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40078857PMC11896621What 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.