ReviewCureus2026
Microneedling Versus Chemical Peels for Atrophic Acne Scars: 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
Atrophic acne scarring is a common complication of acne vulgaris and is associated with a significant psychosocial burden. Among the various treatment options available, microneedling and chemical peels are widely used due to their accessibility and favourable safety profiles. However, uncertainty remains regarding their comparative effectiveness and safety. Hence, the aim of this review is to compare the effectiveness of microneedling versus chemical peels in improving the severity of atrophic acne scars and to evaluate patient satisfaction and adverse events associated with these interventions. Randomized and non-randomized clinical trials were included. Outcomes were categorized as clinically significant improvement (≥50% improvement), any improvement (≥1 grade improvement), and continuous measures of scar severity. Dichotomous outcomes were pooled using risk ratios (RR), while continuous outcomes were analyzed using standardized mean differences (SMD). Outcomes that could not be quantitatively synthesized were analyzed narratively. A total of 11 studies comprising 713 participants were included. Meta-analysis of clinically significant improvement (five studies; n = 215) showed no significant difference between microneedling and chemical peels (RR = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.82-1.15; p = 0.74; I² = 0%). However, microneedling was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of achieving any improvement (four studies; n = 264; RR = 1.79; 95% CI: 1.37-2.34; p < 0.0001; I² = 0%). Analysis of continuous outcomes (four studies; n = 211) showed no significant difference, with a trend favouring chemical peels (SMD = -0.27; 95% CI: -0.91 to 0.38; p = 0.41; I² = 80%). Findings on patient satisfaction were inconsistent, while adverse events varied between interventions, with microneedling associated with greater procedural pain and chemical peels associated with burning sensations and exfoliation. Microneedling and chemical peels appear to be broadly comparable in the treatment of atrophic acne scars, with no clear evidence of superiority. While microneedling may be more effective in achieving minimal improvement, and chemical peels may show advantages in certain continuous measures, these differences are not consistent across outcomes. Treatment decisions should therefore be individualized. Further high-quality studies with standardized outcome measures are needed to strengthen the evidence base.
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.