ReviewCureus2026
Post-acne Erythema: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials on the Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Interventions Across Clinical, Instrumental, and Patient-Reported Outcomes.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Post-acne erythema (PAE) is a persistent acne sequela without an established standard treatment. This systematic review evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of interventions tested in randomized trials. PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from inception through August 1, 2026. Randomized parallel-group and split-face trials reporting erythema outcomes were eligible. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) tool. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis, and available findings were synthesized narratively. Nine trials involving 301 participants contributed 11 pairwise comparisons. Against untreated or blank controls, favorable effects were reported for picosecond alexandrite laser, narrow-spectrum vascular intense pulsed light (IPL), and non-cross-linked hyaluronic acid mesotherapy. A 577-nm semiconductor laser showed interim instrumental benefit, but blinded assessors found no final between-side difference. In active-treatment and add-on comparisons, narrow-spectrum IPL was favored over broad-spectrum IPL, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd) laser added to low-dose isotretinoin was favored over isotretinoin alone, and 577-nm pro-yellow laser was favored over topical brimonidine. Botulinum toxin type A was favored over broadband light at the earliest assessment only. Fractional laser and pulsed dye laser did not differ significantly, while delicate pulsed light and Q-switched 1064-nm Nd laser showed no sustained difference at the final assessment. Adverse events were mild and transient, although pigmentation and blistering occurred with one broad-spectrum IPL protocol. Five trials had some concerns, and four had high overall risk of bias. Trials suggested potential benefits, but small samples, heterogeneity, short follow-up, and reporting limitations precluded identification of a preferred treatment. Larger, prospectively registered trials using blinded assessment and standardized outcomes are needed.
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.