Cochrane · systematic review · CD007917
Light therapies for acne
Barbaric, J, Abbott, R, Posadzki, P, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2016 · Cochrane Library
SkinAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
15
current version
GRADE rated
14
No studies
1
Included studies
NR
No studies 1 · 6.7%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 6 · 40%Low 2 · 13.3%Moderate 6 · 40%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Light therapies (including photodynamic therapy) compared to placebo, no treatment, topical treatment and other comparators for acne vulgaris
Population: Mild, moderate and severe acne vulgaris
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant's global assessment of improvement Non‐standardised scales Light therapies (including photodynamic therapy) vs placebo, no treatment, topical treatment and other comparators | no estimate extracted | 23 studies · 1033 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed change in lesion counts Lesion counts Light therapies (including photodynamic therapy) vs placebo, no treatment, topical treatment and other comparators | no estimate extracted | 51 studies · 2242 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed severe adverse effects Blistering or scarring Light therapies (including photodynamic therapy) vs placebo, no treatment, topical treatment and other comparators | no estimate extracted | 66 studies · 3945 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, indirectness |
MAL‐PDT compared to red light only for acne vulgaris
Population: Moderate and severe acne vulgaris
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Paticipant's global assessment of improvement ‐ Not measured MAL‐PDT vs red light only | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Investigator‐assessed change in inflamed lesions (ILs) Lesion counts MAL‐PDT vs red light only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 360 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed change in non‐inflamed lesions (NILs) Lesion counts MAL‐PDT vs red light only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 360 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed percentage change in ILs Lesion counts MAL‐PDT vs red light only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 360 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed percentage change in NILs Lesion counts MAL‐PDT vs red light only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 360 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed severe adverse effects Application site blister MAL‐PDT vs red light only | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 360 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
Investigator's global assessment (IGA) of improvement Treatment 'success' as defined by IGA score decrease5 MAL‐PDT vs red light only | RR 1.74 [1.11, 2.74] | 3 studies · 360 participants | Moderate Downgraded: indirectness |
ALA‐PDT compared to blue light only for acne vulgaris
Population: Moderate and severe acne vulgaris
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant's global assessment of improvement Non‐standardised scale5 ALA‐PDT vs blue light only | RR 0.87 [0.72, 1.04] | 1 study · 266 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed change in inflamed lesions (ILs) Lesion counts ALA‐PDT vs blue light only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 266 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed percentage change in ILs Lesion counts ALA‐PDT vs blue light only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 266 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Investigator‐assessed severe adverse effects Application site blister ALA‐PDT vs blue light only | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 266 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |
Investigator's global assessment (IGA) of improvement Treatment 'success' as defined by IGA score decrease6 ALA‐PDT vs blue light only | RR 0.81 [0.51, 1.29] | 1 study · 266 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, indirectness |