Light therapies for acne

Barbarić, Jelena; Abbott, Rachel A; Posadzki, Paul; Car, Mate; Gunn, Laura H; Layton, Alison; Majeed, Azeem; Car, Josip

doi:10.1002/14651858.cd007917.pub2

Cited by 39 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 162 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…conducted a systematic review on laser‐ and light‐based therapies ( N = 25) and found a beneficial effect of therapies with blue light, blue‐red light and infrared radiation compared with yellow, red or green light. Barbaric et al . reported similar results in a large Cochrane review on laser‐ and light‐based therapies ( N = 71).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…Hamilton et al 49 conducted a systematic review on laser-and light-based therapies (N = 25) and found a beneficial effect of therapies with blue light, blue-red light and infrared radiation compared with yellow, red or green light. Barbaric et al 50 reported similar results in a large Cochrane review on laser-and light-based therapies (N = 71). In case of chemical peels, Dreno et al 51 reported a small scientific evidence to support the use of chemical peels in acne, despite methodological flaws in some studies (N = 13).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological therapies for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A systematic review and best‐evidence synthesis

Vries

Meulendijks

Driessen

et al. 2018

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Circumstantial evidence was found for non-pharmacological therapies in the treatment of acne vulgaris. However, the lack of high methodological quality among included studies prevented us to draw clear conclusions, regarding a stepwise approach. Nevertheless, our systematic review including a best-evidence synthesis did create order and structure in resulting outcomes in which a first step towards future research is generated.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 60%

The efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological therapies for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A systematic review and best‐evidence synthesis

Vries

Meulendijks

Driessen

et al. 2018

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both search engines were reported in 7 reviews [27][28][29][30][31][32][33] ; Google was reported as the sole search engine in 4 reviews (11 reviews in total) [34][35][36][37] ; Google Scholar was reported as the sole search engine in 12 reviews (19 reviews in total) 25,[38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48] ; and an unnamed search engine was reported in 1 review. 26 Of the 5 reviews that reported the total number of results or the number that was screened, 2 reviews reported the total number of results 27,40 and 3 reviews reported the number that was screened. 38,43,47 Of the latter, the number was different in each review: Vaona et al 47 43 was the only review to include a rationale for the number screened, stating that "in our experience the yield [in Google Scholar] after 200 hits is poor."…”

Section: Additional Details Reported About Search Enginesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews

Briscoe

2017

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The literature searches that are used to identify studies for inclusion in a systematic review should be comprehensively reported. This ensures that the literature searches are transparent and reproducible, which is important for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic review and re-running the literature searches when conducting an update review. Web searching using search engines and the websites of topically relevant organisations is sometimes used as a supplementary literature search method. Previous research has shown that the reporting of web searching in systematic reviews often lacks important details and is thus not transparent or reproducible. Useful details to report about web searching include the name of the search engine or website, the URL, the date searched, the search strategy, and the number of results. This study reviews the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews published in the 6-month period August 2016 to January 2017 (n = 423). Of these reviews, 61 reviews reported using web searching using a search engine or website as a literature search method. In the majority of reviews, the reporting of web searching was found to lack essential detail for ensuring transparency and reproducibility, such as the search terms. Recommendations are made on how to improve the reporting of web searching in Cochrane systematic reviews.

show abstract

“…The preliminary version of the Cochrane systematic review “Light therapies for acne” by Barbaric et al . was checked for sufficient methodological quality (see Appendix IV, checklist by Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network [SIGN]). Detailed results from the Cochrane review could unfortunately not be displayed in the guidelines as it was still preliminary.…”

Section: Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods report on the development of the European evidence‐based (S3) guideline for the treatment of acne – update 2016

Nast

Rosumeck

Erdmann

et al. 2016

Acad Dermatol Venereol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Light therapies for acne

Cited by 39 publications

References 162 publications

The efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological therapies for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A systematic review and best‐evidence synthesis

The efficacy and safety of non‐pharmacological therapies for the treatment of acne vulgaris: A systematic review and best‐evidence synthesis

A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews

Methods report on the development of the European evidence‐based (S3) guideline for the treatment of acne – update 2016

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About