Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsRandomized Controlled TrialEurope PMCOpen access

Atrophic Postacne Scar Treatment: Narrative Review

Attia E.

Randomized Controlled Trial on Scar, published in JMIR Dermatol (2024) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level B· Emerging clinical evidence with positive signalsEvidence level of this study

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal
JMIR Dermatol (2024)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38381492
PMCID
PMC10918545
DOI
10.2196/49954
Citations
3

Abstract (original English)

Acne scarring is a frequent complication of acne. Scars negatively impact psychosocial and physical well-being. Optimal treatments significantly improve the appearance, quality of life, and self-esteem of people with scarring. A wide range of interventions have been proposed for acne scars. This narrative review aimed to focus on facial atrophic scarring interventions. The management of acne scarring includes various types of resurfacing (chemical peels, lasers, and dermabrasion); the use of injectable fillers; and surgical methods, such as needling, punch excision, punch elevation, or subcision. Since the scarred tissue has impaired regeneration abilities, the future implementation of stem or progenitor regenerative medical techniques is likely to add considerable value. There are limited randomized controlled trials that aimed to determine which treatment options should be considered the gold standard. Combining interventions would likely produce more benefit compared to the implementation of a single method.

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.

Evidence level

Several human studies show positive signals, while research methods and sample sizes continue to develop.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research