Summary of findings 3. Fractional laser versus combined chemical peeling plus needling for acne scars.
| Fractional laser versus combined chemical peeling plus needling for acne scars | ||||||
| Patient or population: people with acne scars Settings: hospital‐based Intervention: fractional laser versus combined chemical peeling plus needling | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Fractional laser versus combined chemical peeling plus needling | |||||
| Participant‐reported scar improvement (long‐term) N of participants with > 50% improvement in acne scars Follow‐up: mean 12 months | 692 per 1000 | 692 per 1000 (415 to 1000) | RR 1 (0.6 to 1.67) | 26 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,2 | ‐ |
| Participant‐reported scar improvement (short‐term) | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | This outcome was not measured |
| Investigator‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | This outcome was not measured |
| Participant‐assessed adverse events (short‐term) N of participants with adverse events Follow‐up: mean 4 weeks | 1000 per 1000 | 1000 per 1000 (860 to 1000) | RR 1 (0.86 to 1.16) | 25 (1 study) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1,3 | ‐ |
| Participant satisfaction | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | This outcome was not measured |
| Quality of life | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | ‐ | See comment | This outcome was not measured |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1Downgraded by one level for high risk of bias regarding blinding of participants and personnel. 2Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision because the optimal information size (OIS) is not met (should be around 200), very small sample size, and the 95% CI around the estimate of effect includes both no effect and appreciable benefit. 3Downgraded two levels for very serious imprecision because the optimal information size (OIS) is not met, very small sample size, and the 95% CI around the estimate of effect includes both no effect and appreciable harm.