SynthesisNanomedicine (London, England)2026
Hydrogels for acne treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
Synthesis in Nanomedicine (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimHydrogels are three-dimensional, water-rich polymer networks that enhance drug delivery, hydration, and tolerability in topical acne therapy. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of hydrogel-based formulations for acne treatment.
methodsSystematic search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library (inception - September 2025) was performed following PRISMA guidelines. Eligible clinical trials assessed hydrogel-based therapies for acne reporting quantitative lesion outcomes. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted using standardized mean difference (SMD) as the effect estimate. Risk of bias (RoB 2, ROBINS-I), heterogeneity (I
resultsThirteen studies (n = 3,654) met inclusion criteria, with seven (n = 2,986) included in the meta-analysis. Hydrogel-based formulations demonstrated favorable outcomes over comparators. Eight studies reported significant improvements in acne severity or lesion reduction (p < 0.05), while five showed non-significant but positive trends. Pooled meta-analysis confirmed significant benefit for hydrogels (SMD = -0.47, 95% CI - 0.78 to -0.16; p = 0.003). Despite high heterogeneity among meta-analyzed studies (I
conclusionTopical hydrogels effectively reduce acne lesions with excellent safety and tolerability. Larger, well-designed RCTs are warranted to confirm long-term outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.