Question · asked by 1 review
Chemical peeling vs needling: Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with positive adverse events
- Population
- people with acne scars
- Intervention
- Chemical peeling
- Comparison
- needling
- Outcome
- Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with positive adverse events
It is very uncertain whether chemical peeling changes participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants… compared with needling (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Chemical peeling vs needling Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with positive adverse events · people with acne scars It is very uncertain whether chemical peeling changes participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants… compared with needling (very low certainty). Interventions for acne scars (2016) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 1 [0.87, 1.15] | 1 study · 27 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interventions for acne scars 2016 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.