Chantalat 2007.

Study characteristics
Methods	Aim of study: a second cleanser (cleanser B) containing the microgel complex with 0.5% SA was evaluated Design: double‐blind, randomised, vehicle controlled design 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: acne participants Setting: not described Randomised number: unclear Age: not described Sex: unclear Severity of illness: not described
Interventions	Name of treatment group: 0.5% SA group n = unclear (see notes) Description: a cleanser containing the microgel complex with 0.5% SA Treatment period: unclear Timing: unclear Name of treatment group: vehicle group n = unclear (see notes) Description: vehicle group Treatment period: unclear Timing: unclear
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Participants' global self‐assessment of acne improvement (e.g. measured by a 4‐point scale: excellent, good, fair, and poor). 'Global acne severity' was reported in the trial, but probably 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). Day 1, but no numerical data were reported Physicians' global evaluation of acne improvement. "Global acne severity" was reported in the trial, but probably 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: 100% is sponsored by Johnson & Johnson Consumer & Personal Products Worldwide
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	We judged an unclear risk of bias because the authors did not report this issue.
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	This study was 'double‐blinded' and vehicle controlled, blinding probably sufficient.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	This study was 'double‐blinded' and vehicle controlled. Insufficient information about how blinding of outcome assessor was ensured.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	The authors did not report the 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