. 2017 Mar-Apr;92(2):212–216. doi: 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20175273

Table 3.

Chemical peeling and post - peeling assessments

Estudo	Peeling agents and concentrations	Study design and post-peeling assessment
Kessler, et	GA 30%, SA 30%	Double-blind, randomized controlled study, prospective, split-face.
al., 2008 ⁽¹³⁾		Quantitative and qualitative assessment was done based on the number of papules and pustules
		Clinical response was graded as:
		Good > 50% improvement.
		Satisfactory (21%-50%)
		Poor (10%-20%)
		No change
		Worsening
Hashimoto	SA 30%	Open-label trial, ten weeks study.
et al.,2008		Clinical response was assessed by both changes in severity and comedone count reduction rate.
⁽¹⁰⁾
Dainichi et	SA 30 % -PEG	Open-label trial, non-specific peeling number,
al.,2008 ⁽⁹⁾		Assessments by a questionnaire on adverse effects and efficacy of the peeling, which was filled
		out by patients. The evaluation scores for each question were divided into five answer categories:
		Not at all: 0%.
		Little: 0% to 25%.
		Some: 25% to 50%.
		Quite a lot: 50% to 75%.
		Very much: 75% to 100%.
Garg et al.,	GA 35%, SA 20% -mandelic	Open-label trial, comparative study.
2009 ⁽¹⁴⁾	acid 10% peels	Pre-treatment assessments of acne lesion was done by Michaelson method,
		Post- treatment assessment of the response on a 5-point visual analog scale:
		Good > 60%.
		Satisfactory 31 - 60%.
		Poor < 30%.
		No change
		Worsening
Dréno et al.,	RAL 0.1%, GA 6%	Open-label trial,
2011⁽¹⁵⁾		Efficacy of treatment was assessed by counting inflammatory lesions (papules & pustules) and
		retentional lesions (open and closed comedones) on days 30 and 90 using a 5-grade rating scale:
		0 = no improvement.
		1 = mild improvement.
		2 = moderate improvement.
		3 = notable improvement.
		4 = very notable improvement.
Kim et al.,	GA 70%, Jessner's	A randomized prospective clinical trial of split-face model therapy was done.
1999 ⁽⁸⁾	solution	Skin lesions were graded by using Cunliffe's acne grading system based on depth and width of
		acne lesions.
		0.25: a few small inflamed lesions.
		0.5: small inflammatory lesions over a wider area.
		1.0: more intensely inflamed.
		1.5: intensely inflamed lesions over a wider area.
		2.0: deeper lesions but not nodular.
Atzori et al.,	GA 70%	Open-label trial, the procedure was well tolerated and patient compliance was excellent when
1999 ¹¹		asked to evaluate their skin.
		Assessments by patient opinion and clinical rating based on this scale:
		Mild improvement.
		Moderate improvement.
		Marked improvement.
		Worsening.
		95% of the patients reported marked improvement, while the rest reported a moderate effect.

SA-PEG : Salicylic acid in polyethylene glycol, GA; Glycolic acid, RAL; Retinaldehyde, SA; Salicylic acid.