Techapichetvanich 2011.

Study characteristics
Methods	Aim of study: to evaluate efficacy and tolerability of a combination of serial SA peels and topical standard regimen consisting of 5% BPO and 1% clindamycin lotion comparing with topical regimen alone in the treatment of mild to moderately severe facial AV Design: parallel, randomised, placebo controlled study Unit of allocation: individuals Allocation: randomisation; not reported Blinding: double‐blind Duration of trial (from recruitment to last follow‐up): not described Dropouts: unclear
Participants	Population description: participants with mild or moderate acne Setting: not described Randomised number: 37 Age: not described Sex: not described Severity of illness: mild to moderate
Interventions	Name of treatment group: SA group; n = unclear Description: 20% or 30% SA peels Treatment period: six weeks Timing: once a week Name of treatment group: vehicle group; n = unclear Description: vehicle group Treatment period: six weeks Timing: once a week
Outcomes	Primary outcomes Participants' global self‐assessment of acne improvement (e.g. measured by a four‐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). Reduction of total and non‐inflamed lesions, week 10 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). Only mentioned side effects from both groups were comparable but no numerical data Quality of life. Authors did not report this outcome
Notes	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
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	This is a 'double‐blind', 'placebo‐controlled' trial, blinding probably sufficient.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	This is a 'double‐blind', 'placebo‐controlled' trial, insufficient information about how blinding of assessor was ensured throughout the study.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	This was not stated
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Study published as abstract only
Other bias	Low risk	No other potential bias identified