Hayashi 2012.

Study characteristics
Methods	Aim of study: to evaluate AZA 20% cream efficacy in Japanese participants with AV Design: randomised placebo‐controlled investigator‐blinded split‐face study Unit of allocation: face Allocation: randomisation; no details Blinding: blinding for investigators Duration of trial (from recruitment to last follow‐up): not described Dropouts: not described
Participants	Population description: Japanese participants with AV Setting: multicentres in Japan, all participants were Japanese Randomised number: 66 Age: ≥ 16 years old Sex: unclear Severity of illness: AV with more than 30 total lesion counts
Interventions	Name of treatment group: 20% AZA cream n = unclear (see notes) Description: 20% AZA cream Treatment period: 12 weeks Timing: twice daily Name of treatment group: placebo n = unclear (see notes) Description: placebo group Treatment period: 12 weeks Timing: twice daily
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Participants' global self‐assessment of acne improvement (e.g. measured by a 4‐point scale: excellent, good, fair, and poor). Authors did not report 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). Week 12 Physicians' global evaluation of acne improvement. Authors did not report this outcome Minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event). Authors reported subjective symptoms, but with no numerical data Quality of life. Authors did not report this outcome
Notes	The study authors did not report the number of participants allocated to each group. Funding: not reported
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	Low risk	This study was an 'investigator‐blinded', 'placebo‐controlled' study. Blinding probably sufficient
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	This study was an 'investigator‐blinded', 'placebo‐controlled' study. Insufficient information about how blinding of outcome assessor was ensured.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	This was not stated.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Study published as poster only
Other bias	Low risk	No other potential bias identified