ReviewJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Medicinal Plants for Acne Vulgaris: An Evidence-Based Review of Treatments Promoted by Social Media.
Review in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preclinical Evaluation of Anti-Acne Topical Creams Containing Psorospermum Febrifugum Stem Bark Extract: Lipase Inhibition, Sebum Regulation, and Dermal Safety.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology · 2026Article
- Medicinal Plants for Acne Vulgaris: An Evidence-Based Review of Treatments Promoted by Social Media.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAcne vulgaris refers to a chronic inflammatory state of the pilosebaceous follicles that affects the majority of adolescents. Treatments encompass topical agents and systemic therapies. Nowadays, we encounter a growing tendency to use herbal remedies, which raises concerns about misinformation disseminated by digital platforms.
aimThis narrative review investigated herbal acne treatments recommended by virtual platforms (WhatsApp, Instagram, and Telegram), and gleaned medicinal plants from authoritative references.
methodsA literature search across international and Persian databases, including PubMed and Scopus, was implemented employing keywords and Boolean operators. Data synthesis highlighted evidence gaps and inconsistencies.
resultsThe review found different medicinal plants holding potential acne treatment properties, including tea tree oil, lavender, licorice, turmeric, and heartsease among others. Some demonstrated antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, or sebum-reducing effects in vitro or clinically. Others lacked strong evidence or clinical validation. Furthermore, combinations like tea tree and lavender oils showed lesion-decreasing effects. However, gaps remain in clinical research for a number of plants traditionally claimed to treat acne vulgaris.
conclusionWhile digital platforms play an important role in spreading health-related information, they have promoted several remedies for acne vulgaris that have not been scientifically verified. Hence, cyberspace is not currently deemed a dependable source of treatment information for nonmedical experts.
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.