Chantalat 2005.

Study characteristics
Methods	Aim of study: to evaluate the efficacy of twice daily application of the novel 2% SA acne treatment compared to twice daily application of 10% BPO treatment or untreated (control) Design: parallel Unit of allocation: patients Allocation: unclear Blinding: double‐blind Duration of trial (from recruitment to last follow‐up): not described Dropouts: not described
Participants	Population description: mild to moderate acne Setting: not described Randomised number: unclear Age: not described Sex: either sex Severity of illness: mild to moderate acne
Interventions	Name of treatment group: 2% SA group n = unclear (see notes) Description: novel 2% SA acne treatment Treatment period: unclear Timing: twice daily Name of treatment group: BPO group n = unclear (see notes) Description: 10% BPO gel Treatment period: unclear Timing: twice daily
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Participants' global self‐assessment of acne improvement (e.g. measured by a four‐point scale: excellent, good, fair, and poor). "Subject self‐assessments" was reported in the trial, but not this outcome Withdrawal for any reason. Authors did not report this outcome Secondary outcomes Change in lesion counts (total or inflamed and non‐inflamed separately). Only mentioned resolution of lesions at week 1 but no numerical data were reported. Physicians' global evaluation of acne improvement. "Subject self‐assessments" was reported in the trial, but not this outcome. Minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event). Mentioned minor adverse events but no numerical data reported. Quality of life. Authors did not report this outcome
Notes	The study authors did not report the number of participants allocated to each treatment group. Funding: not described
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Although 'randomised' was mentioned, no details were reported for random sequence generation.
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details of allocation concealment were described.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Although 'double‐blind' was mentioned, no details were reported for its identification.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Although 'double‐blind' was mentioned, no details were reported for its identification.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The authors only reported the number of participants who completed trial but did not report total number of randomised participants.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Study published as abstract only
Other bias	Low risk	No other potential bias identified