12. Gluconolactone (alpha‐hydroxy acid) compared to placebo.
| Gluconolactone (alpha‐hydroxy acid) compared to placebo for acne | ||||||
| Patient or population: participants with acne Settings: not described Intervention: topical gluconolactone (alpha‐hydroxy acid) Comparison: placebo | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Placebo/no treatment | Topical gluconolactone | |||||
| Participants' global self‐assessment of acne improvement | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | Not measured |
|
Withdrawal for any reason (long term: treatment duration > 8 weeks) |
80 per 1000 | 100 per 1000 (29 to 350) | RR 1.25 (0.36 to 4.38) | 100 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa | ‐ |
|
Total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event (long term: treatment duration > 8 weeks) |
100 per 1000 | 240 per 1000 (91 to 631) | RR 2.40 (0.91 to 6.31) | 100 (1 study) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowb | Participants in gluconolactone group reported more erythema, burning and stinging, pruritus and scaling than those in the placebo group, but these differences were not "significant". |
| Quality of life | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 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. | ||||||
aDowngraded by two levels to low quality evidence. One level for risk of bias: only one study included with high risk of other bias and unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. One level for imprecision: wide CI and optimal sample size not met. bDowngraded by two levels to low quality evidence. One level for risk of bias: only one study included with high risk of other bias and unclear risk of selection and reporting bias. One level for imprecision: wide CI and optimal sample size not met. *We choose a mean baseline risk from the studies included in meta‐analysis, calculated as number of participants in the control groups with event divided by total number of participants in control groups (study population) as assumed risk.