Cited by 17Acne and Rosacea Treatments and EffectsDermatology and Skin DiseasesDermatologic Treatments and Research

Efficacy of a multitargeted, salicylic acid‐based dermocosmetic cream compared to benzoyl peroxide 5% in Acne vulgaris : Results from a randomized study

Open access
Dal Belo, Susi Elaine, Kanoun‐Copy, Leila, Lambert, Christina, Cornillon, Céline, Muller, Benoit, Jouni, Hussein, Moreau, Magali, Palamarchuk, Irina +2 more·2024·Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology

Abstract

Introduction: Acne vulgaris (acne) is characterized by both inflammatory and non‐inflammatory lesions. Benzoyl peroxide (BPO) 5% is approved to treat acne but may cause skin irritation and/or contact allergy. Objectives: To compare the benefit in acne of a multitargeted dermocosmetic cream containing salicylic acid, lipohydroxy acid, niacinamide, 2‐oleamido‐1,3‐octadecanediol, piroctone olamine, zinc, Aqua posae filiformis , and thermal spring water (DC‐Eff) to BPO 5% gel. Materials and Methods: 150 Caucasian subjects (50% female) aged between 18 and 40 years, with mild to moderate acne according to the GEA (Global Evaluation of Acne) grading system were randomized into two parallel groups (DC‐Eff or BPO to be applied twice daily for 56 days). IGA (investigator global assessment), GEA, lesion count, clinical signs and symptoms, and subject assessment were evaluated at baseline, and after 28 and 56 days (D28 and D56) of treatment. Results: The responder analyses of the IGA and GEA scores showed that 62.2% and 47.3%, respectively, in the DC‐Eff, compared with 50.0% and 36.5%, respectively, in the BPO, had improved by at least one point at D56. Inflammatory, non‐inflammatory, and total lesion counts significantly ( p < 0.0001) decreased with both products from baseline, with no between‐group difference. Subjects considered that their skin was smoother and that DC‐Eff was easy to apply. DC‐Eff was better tolerated than BPO. Conclusions: DC‐Eff applied twice daily is as beneficial as BPO in improving mild‐to‐moderate acne. DC‐Eff was better tolerated than BPO and highly appreciated.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jocd.16052

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Five randomized controlled trials showed significantly superior reductions in acne lesion counts with dermocosmetics versus comparators.

    “Five RCTs showed significantly superior reductions in acne lesion counts with dermocosmetics versus comparators”

    From International expert consensus recommendations for the use of dermocosmetics in acne. (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

    Section 3.2 (Clinical efficacy) reports significant reductions in lesion counts from baseline in both treatment groups, but explicitly states there was no difference between groups. The Methods describe one randomized study, not five RCTs. The source therefore does not support the claimed superiority over comparators. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two randomized controlled trials showed reductions in acne lesion counts comparable to benzoyl peroxide 2.5% and 5% and retinoic acid 0.025%.

    “two showed reductions comparable to BPO 2.5% and 5% and retinoic acid 0.025%.”

    From International expert consensus recommendations for the use of dermocosmetics in acne. (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Methods and Figure 5 describe one randomized study in which acne lesion counts fell in both the dermocosmetic and benzoyl peroxide 5% groups. This paper does not establish the claim about two trials or comparisons with benzoyl peroxide 2.5% and retinoic acid 0.025%. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In both randomized controlled trials assessing tolerability, the dermocosmetic was better tolerated than comparators (benzoyl peroxide and retinoic acid 0.025%).

    “In both RCTs, tolerability of the dermocosmetic was better than that of comparators (BPO and retinoic acid 0.025%).”

    From International expert consensus recommendations for the use of dermocosmetics in acne. (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

    Section 3.5 (Local tolerance; page unavailable) reports that the dermocosmetic was better tolerated than benzoyl peroxide. The Methods describe one randomized comparison with benzoyl peroxide; our copy does not report a second RCT comparing tolerability with retinoic acid 0.025% (searched: retinoic acid 0.025%, retinoic acid). (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Tolerability was an outcome in seven studies: two randomized controlled trials and five low-quality studies, collectively including 229 patients in dermocosmetic groups and 175 in comparator groups.

    “Tolerability was an outcome in seven studies: two RCTs and five low‐quality studies that collectively included 229 patients in dermocosmetic groups and 175 in comparator groups.”

    From International expert consensus recommendations for the use of dermocosmetics in acne. (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

    The Methods describe a randomized comparison, Table 1 lists 75 participants in each group, and §3.5 reports local tolerability. This paper supports its inclusion as a tolerability-assessing RCT, but it does not establish the citing sentence’s totals of seven studies, 229 dermocosmetic patients, and 175 comparator patients, or the quality ratings of the other studies. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two randomized controlled trials had numerically but not statistically superior reductions in acne lesion counts with dermocosmetics.

    “two RCTs had numerically but not statistically superior reductions”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dal Belo, S. E., Kanoun‐Copy, L., Lambert, C., Cornillon, C., Muller, B., Jouni, H., Moreau, M., Palamarchuk, I., Kerob, D., & Aguilar, L.
Affiliations
  • L'Oréal Research and Innovation Aulnay‐Sous‐Bois France
  • L'Oréal (France) (FR)
  • L'Oréal Research and Innovation Clichy France
  • Cosmetest Vidnovlennya Zhytomir Ukraine
  • La Roche‐Posay Laboratoire Dermatologique Levallois‐Perret France
Venue
Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2023-11-08
Volume
23
Issue
3
Pages
891-897
ISSN
  • 1473-2130 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-2165
OpenAlex
W4388537120
Cited by
17
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Acne and Rosacea Treatments and Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatologic Treatments and Research
Keywords
acne, salicylic acid, benzoyl peroxide, nicotinamide, piroctone olamine, zinc, thermal spring water, treatment tolerability, lesion count, skin irritation
MeSH terms
Acne Vulgaris, Adolescent, Adult, Benzoyl Peroxide, Dermatologic Agents, Drug Combinations, Female, Gels, Humans, Male, Treatment Outcome, Salicylic Acid, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review