ArticleBMJ open2025
Acne scarring: protocol for development of a core outcome set for clinical trials.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Deciphering the cellular landscape of pathological scars.Burns & trauma · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAcne scarring is one of the primary sequelae that affect patients with acne, with facial scarring occurring to some extent in 95% of patients with active acne. Subtypes include atrophic, hypertrophic and keloid scarring. Treatment options include topical and surgical approaches. Despite numerous clinical trials focusing on acne scarring treatments, the absence of standardised outcome reporting across these trials raises concerns in evaluating treatment methods. To address this issue, this project aims to develop a core set of outcomes which should be uniformly assessed in all clinical trials involving acne scarring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Outcomes will be extracted from four sources: a systematic literature review, patient interviews, printed and electronic sources and stakeholder involvement. The steering committee will assess the potential outcomes, adding or removing outcomes if needed. The Delphi process will be performed to understand the importance of outcomes. Two rounds of Delphi surveys will be completed by physicians, researchers and patients. Following this, a consensus meeting involving stakeholders will be held to refine the outcomes based on participant scores. The meeting will end in a voting process to determine a final recommended core outcome set (COS). This study will be conducted in collaboration with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative and the CHORD COUSIN Collaboration (C3). This study aims to develop a global COS to standardise assessment approaches in clinical trials of acne scarring. The final goal is to enhance uniformity of outcome reporting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval and consent to participate for the study have been granted by Northwestern University Institutional Review Board protocol ID: STU00097285. On completion of the COS, we plan to publish our results in peer-reviewed journals and send participants the finalised COS. PROSPERO REGISTRATION DETAILS: This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023460964), COMET (754) and C3 (https://www.c3outcomes.org/improved-acne-scarring).
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.