ReviewSkin health and disease2026
Treatment adherence in acne vulgaris: systematic review and narrative synthesis.
Review in Skin health and disease, 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
25 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acne vulgaris is common and has a substantial impact on patients' quality of life. Low adherence to acne treatments is a barrier to successful management. Objectives: To examine the prevalence of adherence to oral and topical treatments for acne, factors associated with adherence and reasons for nonadherence. Methods: We included primary quantitative studies that investigated acne-related experiences and behaviours, including predictors, determinants and outcomes associated with treatment adherence. We searched the following databases from inception until 24 March 2025, with no language restrictions: MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We present the findings related to observational studies, analysed using narrative synthesis. Results: Twenty-six eligible papers reported studies in the Americas, Europe and Asia. Thirteen papers reported quantitative descriptive studies (8111 survey participants plus 2 studies that reported data from electronic health records) and 13 papers (12 studies, 37 884 participants) reported other designs such as analytic cross-sectional or cohort studies. Methods for evaluating adherence varied: 21 studies used self-report with differing questionnaire designs, 3 used prescription data to evaluate medication possession ratio, 3 assessed drug refills, 1 carried out database drug survival analysis and 1 used pill count or tube weighing. Four studies used more than one method. The prevalence of adherence estimates varied from 6% to 84%, with larger studies estimating 50-65% adherence. Adherence was lower among younger people, but there was inconsistent evidence for differences between men and women, or between topical and oral treatments. Reasons for nonadherence included cost, side effects, perceived treatment ineffectiveness or symptom resolution. Conclusions: Improving treatment adherence in acne remains a priority, particularly for younger people. Interventions addressing the management of side effects and time to effectiveness of treatments may be beneficial.
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.