Jaffary 2016.

Study characteristics
Methods	Aim of study: to compare the efficacy of pyruvic acid 50% and SA 30% peeling in the treatment of mild to moderate acne Design: parallel Unit of allocation: individuals Allocation: no details of concealment Blinding: one‐blind Duration of trial (from recruitment to last follow‐up): recruited within the second 6 months of 2010 Dropouts: SA group: 16; pyruvic acid group: 18
Participants	Population description: mild to moderate acne Setting: Al‑Zahra Hospital Dermatology Clinic and Isfahan Skin Research Centre, Iran Randomised number: 86 Age: 15 to 40 years; SA group: 23.05 ± 5.7; pyruvic acid group: 25.07 ± 6 Sex (M/F): SA group (4/39); pyruvic acid group (3/40) Severity of illness: participants with mild to moderate acne
Interventions	Name of treatment group: SA n = 43 Description: SA 30% peels Treatment period: eight weeks Timing: applied every two weeks Name of treatment group: pyruvic acid n = 43 Description: pyruvic acid 50% peels Treatment period: eight weeks Timing: applied every two weeks
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Participants' global self‐assessment of acne improvement (e.g. measured by a 4‐point scale: excellent, good, fair, and poor). Week 8; 4‐point scale was used, patient satisfaction (excellent, good, fair, poor) were recorded using a checklist. Withdrawal for any reason. 34 withdrawals during the 8‐week study Secondary outcomes Change in lesion counts (total or inflamed and non‐inflamed separately). Reduction of non‐inflamed and inflamed lesion counts, week 2, 4, 6 and 8. Physicians' global evaluation of acne improvement. Week 8; a 4‐point system defined by the author (excellent, good, moderate, poor), initial acne severity index improved more than 75%: excellent, improved 50% to 75%: good, improved 25% to 50%: moderate, and improved < 25%: poor response. Minor adverse events (assessed as total number of participants who experienced at least one minor adverse event). Mentioned this outcome but no usable data Quality of life. Authors did not report this outcome Other outcomes that were not analysed in this review Acne severity index
Notes	Funding: not described
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Quote: " The patients randomly allocated in one of the two groups under study". Comment: no details of random methods were described
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	No details of concealment
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: " In a prospective one‑blinded clinical trial..." Comment: unclear which side was blinded
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Quote: " In a prospective one‑blinded clinical trial..." Comment: unclear which side was blinded
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	'As‐treated' analysis was used with substantial withdrawals in treatment groups.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Results reported for all prespecified outcomes in the methods section.
Other bias	High risk	Suspicion of fraudulent data reporting (20 participants in group one completed treatment period reported in the text, but 25 reported in Figure and 27 reported in Table)