Cochrane · systematic review · CD011946
Interventions for acne scars
Abdel Hay, R, Shalaby, K, Zaher, H, 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
43
current version
GRADE rated
17
No studies
26
Included studies
NR
No studies 26 · 60.5%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 12 · 27.9%Low 3 · 7%Moderate 2 · 4.7%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
Fractional laser versus non‐fractional non‐ablative laser for acne scars
Population: people with acne scars
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant‐reported scar improvement (long‐term) Fractional laser vs non‐fractional non‐ablative laser | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐reported scar improvement (short‐term) N of participants with > 50% improvement in acne scars Fractional laser vs non‐fractional non‐ablative laser | RR 4 [1.25, 12.84] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Investigator‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) Hyperpigmentation N of participants with adverse events Fractional laser vs non‐fractional non‐ablative laser | RR 0.6 [0.25, 1.45] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) Burning N of participants with adverse events Fractional laser vs non‐fractional non‐ablative laser | RR 1 [0.94, 1.06] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant satisfaction Fractional laser vs non‐fractional non‐ablative laser | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Fractional laser vs non‐fractional non‐ablative laser | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Fractional laser versus radiofrequency for acne scars
Population: people with acne scars
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant‐reported scar improvement (long‐term) Fractional laser vs radiofrequency | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐reported scar improvement (short‐term) N of participants with > 50% improvement in acne scars Fractional laser vs radiofrequency | RR 0.78 [0.36, 1.68] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Investigator‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) Fractional laser vs radiofrequency | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) Fractional laser vs radiofrequency | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant satisfaction Fractional laser vs radiofrequency | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Fractional laser vs radiofrequency | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Fractional laser versus combined chemical peeling plus needling for acne scars
Population: people with acne scars
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant‐reported scar improvement (long‐term) N of participants with > 50% improvement in acne scars Fractional laser vs combined chemical peeling plus needling | RR 1 [0.6, 1.67] | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant‐reported scar improvement (short‐term) Fractional laser vs combined chemical peeling plus needling | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Investigator‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) Fractional laser vs combined chemical peeling plus needling | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with adverse events Fractional laser vs combined chemical peeling plus needling | RR 1 [0.86, 1.16] | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant satisfaction Fractional laser vs combined chemical peeling plus needling | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Fractional laser vs combined chemical peeling plus needling | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Chemical peeling versus placebo or no treatment for acne scars
Population: people with acne scars
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant‐reported scar improvement (long‐term) Chemical peeling vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐reported scar improvement (short‐term) Chemical peeling vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Investigator‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) Chemical peeling vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) Chemical peeling vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant satisfaction Chemical peeling vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Chemical peeling vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Serious or severe adverse events N of participants with positive severe adverse events Chemical peeling vs placebo or no treatment | RR 5.45 [0.33, 90.14] | 1 study · 58 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Chemical peeling versus combined chemical peeling plus any active intervention for acne scars
Population: people with acne scars
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant‐reported scar improvement (long‐term) N of participants with > 50% improvement in acne scars Chemical peeling vs combined chemical peeling plus any active intervention | RR 1.24 [0.87, 1.75] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant‐reported scar improvement (short‐term) Chemical peeling vs combined chemical peeling plus any active intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Investigator‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) Chemical peeling vs combined chemical peeling plus any active intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with adverse events Chemical peeling vs combined chemical peeling plus any active intervention | RR 1 [0.83, 1.2] | 1 study · 20 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Participant satisfaction Chemical peeling vs combined chemical peeling plus any active intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life Chemical peeling vs combined chemical peeling plus any active intervention | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Chemical peeling versus needling for acne scars
Population: people with acne scars
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant‐reported scar improvement (long‐term) Chemical peeling vs needling | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐reported scar improvement (short‐term) N of participants with > 50% improvement in acne scars Chemical peeling vs needling | RR 1.13 [0.69, 1.83] | 1 study · 27 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Investigator‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with adverse events Chemical peeling vs needling | RR 16 [0.99, 258.36] | 1 study · 27 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with positive adverse events Chemical peeling vs needling | RR 1 [0.87, 1.15] | 1 study · 27 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Patient satisfaction N of satisfied participants Chemical peeling vs needling | RR 1.13 [0.69, 1.83] | 1 study · 27 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life Chemical peeling vs needling | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Injectable fillers versus placebo or no treatment for acne scars
Population: people with acne scars
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Participant‐assessed scar improvement (long‐term) Injectable fillers vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Participant‐reported scar improvement (short‐term) N of participants with > 50% improvement in acne scars Injectable fillers vs placebo or no treatment | RR 1.84 [1.31, 2.59] | 1 study · 147 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Participant satisfaction N of satisfied participants Injectable fillers vs placebo or no treatment | RR 1.63 [1.23, 2.15] | 1 study · 147 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision |
Participant‐reported adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with positive adverse events Injectable fillers vs placebo or no treatment | RR 1.03 [0.1, 11.1] | 1 study · 147 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Investigator‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with positive adverse events Injectable fillers vs placebo or no treatment | RR 0.67 [0.36, 1.27] | 1 study · 147 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Quality of life Injectable fillers vs placebo or no treatment | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |