From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleAcne has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
March 7, 2015Good article nomineeListed
December 19, 2016Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 7, 2017Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

WikiProject Medicine / Dermatology / Translation (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dermatology task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Translation task force (marked as High-importance).


what the #13 has to do with benzoyl peroxide? the whole text just talk about it and then slap Isotretinoin references(and bad ones) out of nonwhere

History and culture[edit]

Here's a few non-medical ideas that might be interesting to add to this article. All of these were taken from the third chapter of

  • The first medical paper exclusively on acne was published in 1885.
  • The supposed cause has changed over time. Masturbation and excessive sexual thoughts were a popular theory for a long time (into the early 20th century among dermatologists). After that, bacteria and rituals of cleanliness take over. Since dermatology grew out of studying syphilis, and since the most important differential diagnoses were syphilis and cutaneous tuberculosis, then assuming any zit-filled face might be associated with a serious and disreputable infection was perhaps not entirely unreasonable in the public mind.
  • Pre-1930s, it was considered mostly a middle-class female worry, especially to the extent that a girl's future prospects depended upon being able to marry to her financial advantage. Acne was associated with dirt, sex, ill health, and ugliness, which is everything that a well-brought-up girl shouldn't have been.
  • During the Great Depression, young men with acne had a harder time getting work, leading to worries about a disaffected generation of poor young men. During WWII, severe acne in dirty tropical conditions caused some men to breakout in such severe and widespread acne that they were declared medically unfit for service in tropical climates.
    • It is at this point that the medical thinking changes from "oh, those vain girls" or "those boys with dirty thoughts" to thinking that acne could ruin a young person's life, cause disabling psychosocial distress, and even prompt suicide.
  • Treatments for acne intersected with skin lightening creams among African-Americans. Hyperpigmentation is more common (as noted in the article), and before the 1960s and 1970s, the social discomfort with darker skin was more pronounced.
  • Treatments: Dermatologists railed against beauty salons treating acne (surgically) until that was banned. Their treatments included an assortment of prescription creams, synthetic estrogen (in the belief that acne was caused by estrogen deficiency), and Röntgen ray treatment (the "cure acne by giving you skin cancer" method).

I hope this is a helpful list of ideas that might be interesting for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting stuff and I agree it might be useful for the history and/or society & culture sections but I don't have access :/ TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823 — Mail me. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2017[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. Consensus supported this move as the common name. Arguments against were largely satisfied by an accurately worded hat note. (closed by non-admin page mover) -- Dane talk 01:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Acne vulgarisAcne – After the recently failed acne vulgaris FAC (see: [1]), I wanted to make sure my watchlist remained on fire (cf: [2]). I would like to reverse this redirect such that acne vulgaris redirects TO acne. I think this change is supported by WP:COMMONNAME, and if the change does occur then I would merge and redirect into the acne article many of the stubs that cover the various obscure subtypes of acne (see: [3]). --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion moved here from Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9#Acne. Pinging My Core Competency is Competency and SlimVirgin to let them know that the discussion has moved here. Steel1943 (talk) 20:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Acne should be the parent article, per WP:COMMONNAME. Subtypes of acne can be discussed summary-style, or if the daughter articles are stubs, merged back into the parent. Acne vulgaris, as the most common form, should redirect to the parent article, instead of vice versa. There should also be a terminology section at the top, explaining the origin of the terms and how they're used. Ideally the article would be well-illustrated to show the subtypes. Someone could write to dermatologists to ask for free images. I'm willing to help with that effort if help is needed. SarahSV (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
    • As I understand it, the actual parent (to the medical way of thinking) is acneiform eruption. The chain is skin disease → acneiform eruptions → (this acne + a bunch of other things that look sort of like this one, but have different causes). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • comment per [4] it should be done,( however in this instance I would rather not vote) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Acne is a broad set of conditions, of which acne vulgaris is simply the most notable. The alternative is to direct Acne to a disambiguation page, but that would not benefit anyone. Wikipedia's goal is to educate, and when the general position is incorrect we do not ignore what is right just because enough people are wrong. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:23, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
Really, hmm. I may have been wrong on this one. My major concern is that merging all the minor articles into this one will ruin it entirely. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Carl, nothing has to be merged in that will ruin this article. It can be done carefully, with links to other articles and summarizing, rather than fully merging. Encyclopaedia Britannica calls its article Acne: "any inflammatory disease of the sebaceous, or oil, glands of the skin. There are some 50 different types of acne. In common usage, the term acne is frequently used alone to designate acne vulgaris, or common acne, probably the most prevalent of all chronic skin disorders." It then focuses on acne vulgaris. That seems like a good approach. SarahSV (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Agree with SV. If we change the name of this article we should still nearly exclusively discuss acne vulgaris with a link to the other types of acne. Merging all types here would not reflect common usage of the term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The current set up works fine. There is a hatnote at the top of the acne vulgaris page which says, "This article is about a skin disease common during adolescence. For other acneiform skin diseases, see Acne (disambiguation)." The disambig page lists the other two dozen or so kinds of acne, as it should. The acne vulgaris article can stand on its own; there is no need or requirement for it to be merged into the foundations of an uber acne article, nor it does it necessarily need to summarise the other types of acne. Sandbh (talk)
  • I further note that "acne" currently redirects to "acne vulgaris"—the common form that lay people will be interested in—so there is no pressing need for the name of the article to changed. Sandbh (talk) 05:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Lean support. I could picture this article as TFA. If that was the case the general reader would not know that acne vulgaris was the common form of the condition they refer to as "acne". So, I have changed my vote to lean support, as long as the article does not have an excessive amount of detail on the multitude of other kinds of acne. I'm thinking that the hat note should say something like, "This article is about the most common form of acne, acne vulgaris. For information about other kinds of acne see acneiform eruption." Sandbh (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I thought about this when I reviewed the article at FAC, and was ultimately convinced it was unnecessary for reasons similar to CFCF's. From the traffic data, I'm unconvinced there's a problem that needs solving here. It sounds like the article SlimVirgin wants to read is acneiform eruption (which does need expansion). Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Acne is the common name. We can have acne (disambiguation) were we link to the other ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Don't care I think that reasonable people, looking at all of the relevant guidelines and policies, could come to either conclusion. So long the one redirects to the other, it's just not that important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • If I walk down the 5 criteria at WP:CRITERIA: Acne is more recognizable, more natural, somewhat less precise, is probably neutral on conciseness, and is probably less consistent. So then let's look at the rest of the policy. I would suggest "acne" is the most commonly recognizable name for this condition. Neither acne nor "vulgaris" are more or less neutral. There's no explicit naming convention. From a disambiguation standpoint either we need to identify "acne vulgaris" as the primary topic or we need to disambiguate it as appropriate (we presently use the natural disambiguation). Given that "acne" redirects to "acne vulgaris", I might suggest that this is indeed the primary topic, and as such does not need the natural disambiguation. As a result, my !vote is to move to acne. --Izno (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I disagree that "Acne" is used most commonly to refer only to vulgaris. I think Acne should be the main article with links to all forms of it listed on the dab page, but I'm not sure if that's a Support, Oppose, or Other. --В²C 02:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC) Changed my mind; see below. --В²C 00:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC).
  • Support per common name. Although the word "acne" is used in many other acneiform conditions, by far and away the most common use relates to acne vulgaris. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:12, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per common name. Acne already points to this article anyway, and has for over 5 years.GliderMaven (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. per SarahSV. Bojilov (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Okay, as long as the hatnote is carefully worded. Per GliderMaven (and WP:COMMONNAME/WP:PRIMARYTOPIC). --В²C 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Aidan (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per common name and also Ockham’s Razor. No need for complicated if simple will do. Montanabw(talk) 06:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Outstanding FAC #2 item summary[edit]

Here's a high-level summary of the suppports, opposes, and outstanding items from the FAC #2 nomination, as mostly stated in your own words. YMMV so if I've glossed over something you feel is critical please feel free to elaborate. My aim is to get this list down, and keep it down, to something manageable, reasonable, and surmountable. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


  • I support the FA nomination. More work can be done, but when it comes to medicine — there is no article where this isn't the case. I may end up adding some things myself prior to the main page feature.

@My Core Competency is Competency:

  • I took some time to reflect about this FAC the last hour, and I really don’t want to dig in any further on these issues. Whatever you all decide is fine with me.

@Opabinia regalis:

  • I'd be in favour of a brief mention of the size or scale of acne-related product sales in the cosmetics industry, though, if you can find sources on that.
I added a source for US sales in 2015. Sandbh (talk) 05:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Support promotion based upon my review of the MOS and images (criteria 2 and 3)


  • I agree with My Core Competency is Competency that cosmetics should be discussed.
I see that some development has occurred wrt cosmetics. Sandbh (talk) 06:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Concealer is, in Western societies, a gendered product, which may account for its relative lack of prominence in articles like this and in academic sources. This article should mention the type of product and link to the page. Depending upon the content, a trade rag might be a perfectly acceptable source (e.g., for "sold X million in Europe last year" claims). OTOH, I think that should be considered ===Self-care=== rather than ==Society and culture==.
  • Acne cosmetics should probably be mentioned and linked in the article, under ===Differential diagnosis===.
  • Here's a few non-medical ideas that might be interesting to add to this article. All of these were taken from the third chapter of
I'll go and look this one up in a couple of days. Sandbh (talk) 05:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Or not, since I see it's already been cited. Sandbh (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Support the prose as a non-medical lay reader

@Hanif Al Husaini:

  • No outstanding concerns that I could see. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Replying to the ping: Some comments were left out. No need to notify me again; I've unwatched here. Victoriaearle (tk) 15:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Lean support, at this time. I believe the following are outstanding:
  1. I've requested a trimming of citations in the lead so that the only ones left are for items that are truly contentious, so current that they're still developing, or horrendously complex. (I can't see anything in the lead that qualifies.)
  2. Concerns about the potential for oral contraceptives causing acne
    See my talk page, here
  3. Concerns about the chocolate discussion
  4. Concerns about the construction of the antibiotic subsection
  5. Another ten or so minor items.


  • No outstanding concerns that I could see. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


  • Leaning oppose. I share Sandbh's concerns. This is a good article and the minor problems with prose and image formatting would be easy to fix. There are problems of coverage which are harder to fix. The article at present over-emphasises the medical aspects of the condition over the cultural ones. The smoking thing bothers me. There are a bunch of minor things that added together tilt me in this direction.

Me (Sandbh) again
I look at this list as it currently stands and feel that, with patience and a bit of help, it's quite doable. Sandbh (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandbh, a major issue for me was how the sources were chosen. That wasn't fully reflected in my oppose, because it took time to look through them, but the more I looked, the more it seemed that there was no pattern to source selection. I would prefer to see fewer sources, where we know that they're the best available.
For example, a PCRM source was used for diet, despite their COI; it was used for chocolate—no COI there—but that made it an even odder choice, and one part of what they said was left out. An article from the Osteopathic Family Physician is used nine times; I can't find a PMID and the DOI leads to a generic Elsevier page with no abstract. Then there's the smoking issue. In 2016 the article said the link between acne and smoking is well-established, sourced to a 2012 review; the next year, based on a 2013 review, it said the link was not well-established, and smoking might even help acne. Which is the better source? What do the preponderance of sources say?
I've added a URL to the Osteopathic Family Physician article, and I see it's now cited twice. Sandbh (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that PCMM source is there any more, nor for chocolate. Sandbh (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Smoking will be done soon. Sandbh (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I'd like the authors to be able to explain how the sources were chosen, so that we can be sure the article reflects the best sources, and sure that dermatologists would find nothing surprising and nothing important missing. If I were writing this, the first thing I'd do is write to a few dermatologists and ask them to read it. SarahSV (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with SarahSV here. As many will attest, I personally don't care how references are formatted, but I do care about how they are used. I similarly brought this up at the FAC. Also, though it is only my opinion, I feel certain references are too heavily referenced (see here for example: [5]). --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 21:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Very interesting. When I develop articles I seek to draw on the recognised sources in the field, supplemented by more specialised journal articles. It would not normally occur to me, in the context of an FAC review, to check the basis of selection of the references. I have asked external experts in their field to review some of my work and that has always worked well, in my experience. So, there are two more things to add to the do list. On the smoking issue my impression of the several sources I've looked at is that the jury is still out. Mind you, I haven't done what I would call a thorough look at literature here. At one recent point there were about five cites in the article supporting the jury is out position but Tyler removed some of those due to reliability concerns. That's fine, it just reinforces my impression that there is no firm consensus about the influence of smoking. I'll probably add a list of these cites here, plus synopses, in attempt to assess what the consensus is, and reduce duplicate efforts. If you refer the article for a look by an external dermatologist could you please flag that here so that we can all look forward to the outcome. Please note that I have other articles and projects, and RL obligations, in train so helping to progress acne vulgaris will be somewhat of a slow time activity for me. Sandbh (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, brother. Facepalm. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
This sounds like a request to write an essay on why certain sources are used more often than certain others, and (a) I'm not finding anything like that in the FAC requirements and (b) this article isn't at FAC any longer anyway.
MEDRS has some pretty good advice on source selection, and AFAICT it was followed appropriately. When citing medical information, the point is to support the individual statement, using any suitably reliable source that reflects the mainstream POV (or a minority POV, if you are presenting a minority POV in that statement). There is no requirement to use "the best" source (even if you could explain why one recent review in a reputable journal is actually "better" than another recent review in a reputable journal), so long as the source clears the already high (some editors say "excessively high") bar for being reliable in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
On the other question I raised, is citing the same source many times (see: [6]) a problem? I ask because I honestly don't know the answer (I just remember in school that heavily using one source was frowned upon for research papers (but that was not Wikipedia)). --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Smoking and acne sources[edit]


Year Citation Extracts Assessment/comments
1993 Mills CM, Peters TJ, Finlay AY. "Does smoking influence acne?" Clin Exp Dermatol 1993; 18:100–101 PMID 8481981 "One hundred and sixty-five patients with acne completed a questionnaire on smoking habits. ... The findings of this study support the hypothesis that some component of cigarette smoke, possibly nicotine, has an anti-inflammatory action on acne." Primary source; included because Bhate and Williams rely on it. According to Firooz et al. (2005), this was the first study to examine a link between smoking and acne.
2001 Schafer T, Nienhaus A, Vieluf D, et al. "Epidemiology of acne in the general population: the risk of smoking". Br J Dermatol 2001;145:100–104. PMID 11453915 "Smoking is a clinically important contributory factor to acne prevalence and severity." Primary source; included because several secondary sources rely on it.
2005 Firooz, A; Sarhangnejad, R; Davoudi, SM; Nassiri-Kashani, M (2005). "Acne and smoking: is there a relationship?". BMC Dermatology. 5 (2). doi:10.1186/1471-5945-5-2 PMID 15790395 PMC 1079805 "There are contradictory reports on the relationship between acne vulgaris and cigarette smoking. The objective of this study was to examine the relation between acne and cigarette smoking in a case-control study. An association between acne and cigarette smoking was not found in this study." Primary source
2005 Zülal, Erbagci; Bayram, Nazan (2005). "Smoking and Skin: A Critical Literature Review on the Association between Smoking and Benign, Premalignant and Malignant Dermatological Disorders", in J. H. Owing (ed.), Smoking and Health: New Research, Nova Publishers, 140ff. "Between the various causative and exacerbating factors, the effect of smoking is currently unclear. Whereas some study results showed that smoking is a clinically important contributory factor to acne prevalence and severity, the others found an insignificant or even an inverse relationship between acne and smoking habits." Zülal is a dermatologist, Bayram a respirologist. Offers a review of the research.
2006 Klaz I, Kochba I, Shohat T, et al. "Severe acne vulgaris and tobacco smoking in young men". J Invest Dermatol 2006; 126: 1749–1752. PMID 16645586 "There was an inverse, dose-dependent relationship between severe acne prevalence and daily cigarette consumption. ... The inverse relationship became statistically significant from 21 cigarettes a day ..." Primary source; included because Bhate and Williams rely on it. In the "Discussion" section, it offers a good overview of previous research.
2009 Capitanio, B; Sinagra, JL; Ottaviani, M; Bordignon, V; Amantea, A; Picardo, M (2009). "Acne and smoking". Dermato-endocrinology. 1 (3): 129–135. PMID 20436880 "Contrasting data are available on correlation between acne and smoking habit. Data on the correlation between acne and smoking are still controversial. The lack of significant statistical difference between smokers with and without acne regarding the cumulative smoking dose (considering that the calculation does not take numerous variables into account such as type of cigarettes smoked, manner of smoking, passive smoking, possible suspension periods, inaccurate number of cigarettes referred, possible variations in the number of cigarette smoked) could suggest that the clinical expression of acne in these patients could be related to genetic predisposition." Primary source
2010 Metelitsa AI & Lauzon GJ 2012. "Tobacco and the skin". Clinical Dermatology. 28 (4): 384–390. doi:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2010.03.021. PMID 20620754 "Smoking negatively impacts the health of the skin as it does every organ system. Dermatologists need to encourage their patients to discontinue this deleterious habit.." Good coverage on the deleterious impact of smoking on the skin
2012 Knutsen-Larson S, Dawson AL, Dunnick CA, Dellavalle RP. "Acne Vulgaris: Pathogenesis, Treatment, and Needs Assessment", Clinics in Dermatology, Jan;30(1):99–106. PMID 22117871 "The link between smoking and acne is well established." Relies on Schafer et al. (2001).
2012 Alice Mannocci, Leda Semyonov, Rosella Saulle, et al. "Association between smoking habits and acne vulgaris. A case-control study", Italian Journal of Public Health, 9(3), 2012. "The association between acne and smoke shows an increased risk (OR=7.26) with a statistically significant CI. Moreover, people ≥ 18 years of age have twice the risk compared to persons < 18 years of age (OR=2.31)." Primary source; included because La Torre et al. (2013) rely on it.
2013 Bhate, K; Williams, HC (March 2013). "Epidemiology of acne vulgaris". The British Journal of Dermatology (Review). 168 (3): 474–85. doi:10.1111/bjd.12149. PMID 23210645. Whether or not acne is caused by, exacerbated, improved, cured, or is not associated with smoking remains controversial.31,125–130 An earlier case series suggested an inverse relationship between acne and smoking, suggesting an anti-inflammatory effect of a component found in cigarettes.125 Later, in 2001, a larger cross-sectional analysis of 896 young people found a statistically significant correlation between acne prevalence and the number of cigarettes smoked per day and a dose-dependent relationship between consumption and severity (not affected by age, sex or social class).31 A large-scale, questionnaire study of 27 083 military men between 1983 and 2003 found the prevalence of acne to be lower in active smokers, with a dose-dependent inverse relationship between severe acne prevalence and cigarette consumption from 21 cigarettes per day and higher.131 ... Further observational research is likely to perpetuate previous problems in reporting bias and confounding. Clinicians are recommended to advise against smoking despite some evidence suggesting it is beneficial with regard to acne." Relies on:
ref 31: Shafer et al. (2001)
ref 125: Mills et al. (1993)
ref 131: Klaz et al. (2006
2013 La Torre G, Gerald G & Semyonov L, Smoking-related diseases epidemiology, in G La Torre (ed.) 2013, Smoking Prevention and Cessation, Springer, New York, pp. 57–106 (85–86) "Acne vulgaris has a multifactorial pathogenesis, but the contribution of smoking show contradictory results...some studies have shown that cigarette smoking aggravate acne (Schafer et al. 2001; Green and Sinclar 2001), others did not confirm this association (Jemec et al. 2002) or even showed a protective effect (Klaz et al. 2006; Rombouts et al. 2007)."
"Recently, Mannocci (2010) carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis concerning the association between acne and smoking. The first meta-analysis, including all studies, showed a nonsignificant role of smoke in the development of acne...The last meta-analysis...showed a nonsignificant result. The first two meta-analyses found no significant association between smoking and the development of acne but the analysis with only good quality studies showed a protective significant effect."
Offers details, cites its sources, explains the back and forth.
2014 Rigopoulos, D; Korfitis, C (2014). "Acne and Smoking". In Zouboulis, C; Katsambas, A; Kligman, AM. Pathogenesis and Treatment of Acne and Rosacea. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. pp. 167–170. ISBN 978-3-540-69374-1. "The association between acne and smoking constitutes an ongoing subject of debate. Several studies have been conducted albeit producing inconsistent results."
2015 Alice Mannocci, Leda Semyonov, Rosella Saulle, et al. "Association between smoking habits and acne. A case-control study and a systematic review and meta-analysis" (pdf), Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Public Health, 12(1), 2015. "In conclusions, smokers have higher risk to develop acne, especially males. Conclusions are not robust, because of heterogeneity definitions of smokers and acne grading."
2016 "Acne: Overview. PubMed Health. Cologne: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care. July 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2017 "It is not clear whether there might be a connection between smoking and acne."
2017 DiPiro JT, ‎Talbert RL & ‎Yee GC 2017, Pharmacotherapy: A Pathophysiologic Approach, 10th ed., McGraw Hill, New York, p. 1536 "Studies examining the relationship between tobacco smoking and acne show inconsistent results; however dermatologists have begun to counsel people to quit tobacco smoking as a potential auxiliary treatment for acne." The last bit about counselling appears also in the 2011 8th ed.


@SlimVirgin: How does this lot look? Sandbh (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sand, here are a few more recent sources: [7] and [8] TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Tyler. I can only access the first of these two articles. Like the other articles it says that conflicting results have been demonstrated. Sandbh (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Sandbh, this is excellent, thank you. I had started looking at the sources' sources. I've only looked at two so far, but both relied on Schafer et al. (2001). PMID 11453915 This apparently concluded that there was a dose-dependent relationship between number of cigarettes smoked and acne severity. But that's an aside. Your list of secondary sources is enough for us to summarize.

SarahSV (talk) 05:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you very much! The do list begins to shrink. Sandbh (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: With my NPOV hat on, despite the distasteful topic, this is what I'd be inclined to mention about smoking (left out the cites for now):
Risk factors for the development of acne, other than genetics, have not been conclusively identified. Possible secondary contributors include hormones, infections, diet and stress. Smoking generally has a detrimental impact on the skin and, for this reason, dermatologists have been encouraged to counsel their patients to stop smoking. There are case reports suggesting a benefit for some other skin conditions. Nicotine patches or tablets may therefore (potentially) have secondary therapeutic applications, subject to further research confirming their efficacy for these uses.
Studies investigating the impact of smoking on the incidence of acne have been inconclusive.
The last sentence is a deliberate one-sentence paragraph. How does this look? Thank you. -- Sandbh (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I find that paragraph somewhat difficult to read, and it could do with some rephrasing. Also we generally avoid case-reports, so I don't think that merits inclusion. The 2005 source is rather old and I would also prefer omitting that one entirely in favor of the newer ones. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Except for the last sentence, all of the stuff on tobacco and nicotine feels off-topic for this article. It should be included in Health effects of tobacco instead (which, at a brief glance, does not appear to mention skin damage at all).
Also, I'd appreciate it if we specified "smoking tobacco", because tobacco is not the only thing that people smoke. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

─────────────────────────@Sandbh: La Torre, Semyonov and Giraldi (2013), 84–86, is quite detailed (La Torre bio). It discusses the studies that showed a connection, that didn't and that seemed to show a protective effect. And it cites its sources, so this article could cite those too where appropriate. SarahSV (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Very cool feedback, thank you Carl, WhatamIdoing, and Sarah. Sandbh (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Sandbh, I've added a few more, noting which studies several of the secondary sources cite. I've also noted which are the primary sources. SarahSV (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Source suggestion for history[edit]

SarahSV (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources[edit]

Have trimmed as number of primary sources. We really need to use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

What reference will you allow me to use in order to be able to include this text that you have removed twice now? Just point me in the right direction, and I will use whatever reference you prefer:
Liquid makeup that is made with an oil-free vehicle without alcohol or perfume is preferred over oil-based cosmetics, as the latter can cause or worsen acne. Oil-free cosmetics are often referred to as noncomedogenic, meaning they do not cause acne.[1]
I am also surprised to see my addition of olumacostat glasareti ("Olumacostat glasareti may be a future treatment option."[2]) removed, but that you are ok with the references for the acne vaccination. Perhaps you should strip out all the references you don't like and the associated content, and let's see what the general Wikipedia community thinks of the change? I would be open to that experiment.
Thanks --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^ Monfrecola, Giuseppe; Cacciapuoti, Sara; Capasso, Claudia; Delfino, Mario; Fabbrocini, Gabriella (October 2016). "Tolerability and camouflaging effect of corrective make-up for acne: results of a clinical study of a novel face compact cream". Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology. Volume 9: 307–313. doi:10.2147/CCID.S115192.
  2. ^ Bissonnette, R; Poulin, Y; Drew, J; Hofland, H; Tan, J (28 October 2016). "Olumacostat glasaretil, a novel topical sebum inhibitor, in the treatment of acne vulgaris: A phase IIa, multicenter, randomized, vehicle-controlled study". Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. PMID 28029390.
There is not much for review articles but here is a major medical textbook[9] which I have added to support non-oil based measures.
There is a strong consensus for high quality secondary sources over primary sources.
Have improved the refs to support the stuff on the acne vaccines.
There are zero review articles on olumacostat so IMO adding it is undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The way you have chosen what should and should not be included in this article is not consistent; however, as per my usual M.O., I am not going to push harder on the inclusion of these sentences (or the other sentences you have removed). In the end, it is the reader who loses out, not me. --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
It is not much more work to find better sources. Not sure why the resistance?
The percentage of treatments that make it to market following a phase 2a trial is very small. That a phase 2a trial has been done is simply not notable in a general encyclopedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Did you switch contexts here? Above, you say that "there are zero review articles" about that drug, but here you are saying that "it is not much more work to find better sources". If there truly are zero review articles, then even an infinite amount of extra work isn't doing to find the non-existent sources.
And if these sentences refer to different subjects, then I'd like to suggest that it's more friendly to upgrade someone else's sources than to blank their contributions, and it's a lot easier to upgrade the sources if the sentence isn't lost somewhere in the edit history. For those who haven't heard this speech from me personally a dozen times already, the WP:BURDEN is for the original editor to provide exactly one (=1) source that the original editor (=not any other editor) honestly (=including honest mistakes) believes is adequate (=not 'the best possible' or even a 'better' source) to demonstrate that the material can be verified in a source. Much of what's been removed has cleared that bar with room to spare.
There's been a lot of editing and a lot of ideas here recently. Not everything that's being added is "polished" or "perfect" on the first try. Let's please attempt a gentler approach, in which we collaborate and build together and give each other some time and space, instead of blanking less-than-perfect first efforts within hours (or even minutes). If something bugs you, then try fixing it or tagging it before you consider blanking it, or even just waiting until next week to see if it's gotten better. The world isn't going to end if we have an extra sentence or two about something accurate and verifiable but relatively unimportant in the article for a few days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Some of it is supportable by major textbooks rather than review article which you will notice I added. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


Could the one use of "greasy" be changed to "oily" as the latter is often used in this article (9 times by my count). "Oily" seems to me to be just a bit more precise. --Mahākāśyapa (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


User:TylerDurden8823 about this diff - I just reviewed this page and its archive and I don't see anywhere that this "was requested by the Wikipedia community"; having this section runs against MEDMOS, actually. None of these people are described as having influenced the history of the condition. Where did the community request this? Jytdog (talk) 06:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jyt, this was discussed at length during the FA review. Many people voiced that the article felt "overmedicalized" and wanted more discussion about acne in society. With that said, I'm not attached to the content so if the community wants it out, I have no issue with that. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. That content is all about advertising for one drug, and the Forbes piece (while by a staff member so OK) is really about the company's marketing strategy to get people to think about the drug as an ongoing treatment regimen not a spot treatment, using celebrities saying that is how they use it. If we are going to have content from that source it should be up on that level; as it stands it basically furthers the companies marketing. So I am going to remove it again... hope that is ok with you and everybody. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
As a condition that affects 80% of people at some point in their life, we should not list people with the condition unless they have had a major effect on the condition. Ie like Michael Jay Fox and Parkinson's. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


Readers of the Nutrition section might need more clarifications on how to weigh the evidence. It is already great that differentiations such as observational evidence and randomized trials are mentioned. I would like to add more guidance. Findings since 2015 might be integrated:

Fiedler (2017) [1]
Juhl et al (2018) [2] 

Vaughn and Sivamani (2015) [3]


Additionally there is Logan's [4] "The Clear Skin Diet" with round-about 200 sources relating to the topic. Source 2: Link Logan gives a non-academic summary of acne research up until 2007. The book as a source is likely not to wikipedia standards, as BallenaBlanca points but the sources they use may be.

Hypochonda (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

It is important that you read and apply these Wikipedia policies WP:MEDRS. The first is a MEDRS source, the other is not.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 21:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


  1. ^ Fiedler, F., Stangl, G. I., Fiedler, E., & Taube, K. M. (2017). Acne and nutrition: a systematic review. Acta dermato-venereologica, 97(1), 7-9.
  2. ^ Juhl, C., Bergholdt, H., Miller, I., Jemec, G., Kanters, J., & Ellervik, C. (2018). Dairy Intake and Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 78,529 Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. Nutrients, 10(8), 1049.
  3. ^ Vaughn, A. R., & Sivamani, R. K. (2015). Effects of fermented dairy products on skin: a systematic review. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 21(7), 380-385.
  4. ^ Logan, A. C., & Treloar, V. (2007). The clear skin diet. Nashville, TN: Cumberland House.

Hypochonda (talk) 08:29, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Please, do not edit your messages after they have been answered. You have altered the meaning of my response. When I answered you, there were only two references.
What you must do is create a new message following the last one.
Please, see WP:TALK.
But do not worry, it's normal to make mistakes at the beginning!
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 🐳 ♂ (Talk) 15:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)


Year Name Summary Evaluation
2018 Juhl et al. [1] coming soon coming soon
2017 Fiedler et al. [2] coming soon coming soon
2016 Kucharska [3] Literature Review ? Recommends patients to keep food diaries and exclude foods that exacerbate acne


Year Name Summary Assessment/comments
2018 Juhl et al. [4] 14 studies, n=78529 ' 'In conclusion, any dairy, such as milk, yogurt, and cheese, was associated with an increased OR (pooled random effects odds ratio) for acne in individuals aged 7–30 years. However, results should be interpreted with caution due to heterogeneity and bias across studies.' ' coming soon
2015 Vaughn & Simavani [5] Results: A total of 312 articles were found and a total of 4 studies met inclusion criteria. Three studies evaluated the effects of ingestion, while one evaluated the effects of topical application. All studies noted improvement with the use of fermented dairy.

Conclusions: Overall, there is early and limited evidence that fermented dairy products, used both topically and orally, may provide benefits for skin health. However, existing studies are limited and further studies will be important to better assess efficacy and the mechanisms involved. || coming soon

2014 Grossi et al. [6] Conclusion: Our analyses confirm the link between several dietetic items and acne. When providing care, dermatologists should also be aware of the complex interconnection between dietetic factors and acne. can someone who knows what semantic connectivity map approach is comment ?

Hypochonda (talk) 08:18, 18 December 2018 (UTC)Hypochonda please note that this is a work in progress and that I do not have a medical background. Misrepresentation will inevitably occur.

If I want to "clean up" this section, am I allowed to delete my own content and replace it ? --Hypochonda (talk) 10:02, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Glycemic Index[edit]


  1. ^ Juhl, C., Bergholdt, H., Miller, I., Jemec, G., Kanters, J., & Ellervik, C. (2018). Dairy Intake and Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 78,529 Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. Nutrients, 10(8), 1049. (PMID 30096883)
  2. ^ Fiedler, F., Stangl, G. I., Fiedler, E., & Taube, K. M. (2017). Acne and nutrition: a systematic review. Acta dermato-venereologica, 97(1), 7-9.(PMID 27136757)
  3. ^ Kucharska, A., Szmurło, A., & Sińska, B. (2016). Significance of diet in treated and untreated acne vulgaris. Advances in Dermatology and Allergology/Postȩpy Dermatologii i Alergologii, 33(2), 81. (PMID 27279815)
  4. ^ Juhl, C., Bergholdt, H., Miller, I., Jemec, G., Kanters, J., & Ellervik, C. (2018). Dairy Intake and Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 78,529 Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults. Nutrients, 10(8), 1049.
  5. ^ Vaughn, A. R., & Sivamani, R. K. (2015). Effects of fermented dairy products on skin: a systematic review. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 21(7), 380-385.
  6. ^ Grossi, E., Cazzaniga, S., Crotti, S., Naldi, L., Di Landro, A., Ingordo, V., ... & Pezzarossa, E. (2016). The constellation of dietary factors in adolescent acne: a semantic connectivity map approach. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology, 30(1), 96-100. (PMID 25438834)

Acne in puberty due to testosterone?[edit]

@Doc James: with regards to this edit, the source doesn't support that statement. I changed the statement in this edit to reflect the source text, which says:

Acne is a follicular disease, the principal abnormality of which is impaction and distention of the pilosebaceous unit. The cause of the hyperproliferation of keratinocytes

and the abnormalities of differentiation and desquamation are unknown. It is likely that hyperresponsiveness to the stimulation of sebocytes and follicular keratinocytes by androgens leads to the hyperplasia of the sebaceous glands and the seborrhea that

characterize acne.

— James, WD (April 2005). "Acne". New England Journal of Medicine (Review). 352 (14): 1463–72. doi:10.1056/NEJMcp033487. PMID 15814882.

The previous statement seems reasonable if it would've been sourced, but it needs accurate sourcing if we are to keep it.

--Treetear (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It supports the involvement of androgens. Have adjusted a bit to make it clear we are talking about the underlying mechanism. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Perfect, agree with your adjustment. Thank you Doc James and Merry Christmas! --Treetear (talk) 15:26, 25 December 2018 (UTC)