Topical and oral CAM in acne: a review of the empirical evidence and a consideration of its context.
BACKGROUND
Acne is one of the commonest diseases to afflict humanity. Anecdotally, the use of CAM in acne is widespread. In this review the empirical evidence for the efficacy of CAM modalities is examined and the context for their use discussed.


METHODS
Searches were made of the MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicines), Cochrane, and DARE databases using the search terms "acne" and "acne vulgaris" together with "alternative" and "complementary".


RESULTS
The identified studies examined a broad range of CAM modalities but were of generally poor methodological quality. Evidence suggests that many of these therapies are biologically plausible.


CONCLUSIONS
Complementary therapies in acne should be viewed in a wider context than that of the very limited empiric evidence base that exists for their use. Further rigorously conducted trials should be conducted to define efficacy and adverse effect profiles of currently used CAM acne therapies.
Magin
P J
PJ
Discipline of General Practice, Newbolds Building, School of Medical Practice and Population Health, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia. parker.magin@newcastle.edu
Adams
J
J
Pond
C D
CD
Smith
W
W
D000152:Acne Vulgaris / Q000628:therapy*; D000284:Administration, Oral; D000287:Administration, Topical; D006801:Humans; D008517:Phytotherapy