ReviewCureus2026
Effectiveness of Microneedling With or Without Insulin in Patients With Acne: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2026. 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
Acne vulgaris is a common dermatologic condition that can lead to scarring, post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and psychosocial distress. Microneedling is an established minimally invasive therapy, and topical insulin has been proposed as an adjunct to enhance tissue repair and clinical outcomes. However, the comparative effectiveness of microneedling with or without topical insulin remains unclear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of four trials including 259 patients to evaluate the efficacy and safety of microneedling combined with topical insulin versus microneedling alone. Outcomes assessed included categorical improvement (poor, moderate, good), mean improvement scores, and adverse events. Patients receiving microneedling plus topical insulin experienced a significantly lower rate of poor improvement compared with microneedling alone (risk ratio (RR): 0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.17-0.76; p = 0.01), while no notable observed differences for good improvement (RR: 2.96; 95% CI: 0.47-18.76; p = 0.25), moderate improvement (RR: 1.16; 95% CI: 0.68-1.98; p = 0.59), or mean improvement scores (standardized mean difference: 0.26; 95% CI: -0.07-0.58; p = 0.12). Adverse events were comparable between groups (RR: 1.53; 95% CI: 0.61-3.83; p = 0.36). Overall, microneedling remains an effective therapy for acne, and adjunctive topical insulin may reduce the risk of poor clinical response without increasing adverse events. These findings suggest potential benefit for selected patients, but larger, well-designed trials are needed to confirm efficacy and optimize treatment protocols.
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.