DHC Acne Spot Therapy
Everything behind the verdicts on this product: the rule that fired for each concern, the three answers and the documents they rest on, every study on the row with the date it was opened, and the versions of the tables that produced them. Nothing here is edited by hand; it is generated from the same records the verdicts are.
The scaleRecommendedGoodSupportingEarly evidenceNot for thisAvoidhow it works
Engine 5.2.0 · rules 0.5.1 · evidence table ev-2026.10-r231 · computed October 13, 2026 · how we decide · the evidence table · the anchors
for Acne
Sulfur is an approved or monograph active for acne; this cream carries it at 3%.
A first-line active — approved, monograph-listed or named in current guidelines — at an effective strength, with no trigger for the concern.
- Rule
- R2 → Strong choice. A first-line active (approved, monograph-listed or named in a current guideline); declared at a working strength, or a labelled active.
q1 = first-line · q2 = adequate
Why this rule exists: A regulator- or guideline-recognised first-line active, declared at an effective strength, in a form the claim supports.
Rule R2 decided 905 verdicts across the catalog; “Strong choice” is the verdict on 1,475 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Sulfur 3%
- 1 · Standing
- First-line — a regulator recognises it for this use; trials support it
Document: § 333.310 Acne active ingredients. (U.S. Food and Drug Administration — 21 CFR Part 333 Subpart D (Topical Acne Drug Products), Code of Federal Regulations via GovInfo), opened July 27, 2026 - 2 · Form
- Adequate — declared at 3%
Studied range: 3–10%, from the OTC monograph or label - 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability — fungal triggers
Cautions: fungal-acne triggers. - Evidence dots
- Limited evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 27, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- Guidelines of care for the management of acne vulgaris (Reynolds et al.) — Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology — AAD clinical guideline, 2024;90(5):1006.e1-1006.e30, doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2023.12.017, PMID 38300170 (2024), opened July 17, 2026
← Back to the verdict All acne products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Hyperpigmentation
Licorice Root Extract has early or mechanistic evidence for hyperpigmentation — a reasonable bet, not a recommendation; the other actives here are not yet assessed for it.
The lead active has early or mechanistic evidence only, or is present below a working level. A reasonable bet, not a recommendation.
- Rule
- R9 → Unproven. An active with early or mechanistic evidence only; the product’s category job is not a recognised companion to the concern.
q1 = plausible · supportive = false
Why this rule exists: Plausible-tier actives alone do not earn a recommendation, and 'not for this' would overstate the case against them. 'Unproven' with the evidence dots lets the reader judge the bet (added 0.2.0 after the first shadow run put a 10% niacinamide serum at 'not for this' for hyperpigmentation). 0.5.0: the closing clause reads the other heroes — "nothing else here addresses it" only when every other active has a researched 'none' row; "not yet assessed" when that is the truth. Rows whose dots read moderate or better now reach R9p first.
Rule R9 decided 4,156 verdicts across the catalog; “Unproven” is the verdict on 4,156 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Vitamin C & Licorice
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 4–20%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact - 3 · Tolerability
- Gentle
- Evidence dots
- Limited evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 17, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- Are Natural Ingredients Effective in the Management of Hyperpigmentation? A Systematic Review — Journal of Clinical and Aesthetic Dermatology (2018), opened July 16, 2026
- Topical liquiritin improves melasma — International Journal of Dermatology (2000), opened July 16, 2026
- Evaluation of a hydroquinone-free skin brightening product using in vitro inhibition of melanogenesis and clinical reduction of ultraviolet-induced hyperpigmentation — Journal of Drugs in Dermatology (2013), opened July 16, 2026
← Back to the verdict All hyperpigmentation products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
for Excess Oiliness
Green Tea Extract has trial-level evidence for excess oiliness but no guideline or regulatory standing yet — promising, short of a recommendation; the other actives here are not yet assessed for it.
The lead active has at least one trial behind it for the concern but no guideline or regulatory standing yet, and is present at a working level. Short of a recommendation.
- Rule
- R9p → Promising. An active with early or mechanistic evidence only; declared at a working strength, or a labelled active or at a plausible but undeclared level; the product’s category job is not a recognised companion to the concern; moderate or strong evidence dots on the carrier’s row.
q1 = plausible · q2 = adequate | plausible · supportive = false · strength = moderate | strong
Why this rule exists: 0.5.0: 'Unproven' beside three filled dots read as one question answered twice with opposite words (7,018 rows). The chip measures standing, the dots measure trial volume; where the row carries at least one RCT or a tier-2 source (moderate dots) and the active is present at a working level, the honest word is Promising. Unproven is reserved for plausible-standing rows with limited or weak evidence, or an under-dosed form. Same rank as Unproven — a bet either way; the dots order them.
Rule R9p decided 4,872 verdicts across the catalog; “Promising” is the verdict on 4,872 of 45,446. The full register. - Carrying active
- Soothing Botanicals
- 1 · Standing
- Plausible — trials support it
- 2 · Form
- Plausible — concentration not declared; read from the position in the ingredient list
Studied range: 3–5%, from the OTC monograph or label; needs leave-on contact - 3 · Tolerability
- Standard tolerability — fungal triggers
Cautions: fungal-acne triggers. - Evidence dots
- Moderate evidence
Row checked against its sources on July 17, 2026 (evidence table ev-2026.10-r231). - What readers report
- No reviews read yet for this product. Shown beside the verdict; never blended into it.
- Verdict since
- September 5, 2026 (unchanged across rebuilds since then)
The studies and documents on the row
- Green Tea and Other Tea Polyphenols: Effects on Sebum Production and Acne Vulgaris — Antioxidants (Basel) — narrative review; authors declare no conflict of interest (2016), opened July 16, 2026
- A comparison of the effects of topical green tea and lotus on facial sebum control in healthy humans — Hippokratia — n=22, single-blinded, placebo-controlled, split-face, Sebumeter (2013), opened July 16, 2026
- Outcomes of 3% green tea emulsion on skin sebum production in male volunteers — Bosnian Journal of Basic Medical Sciences — n=10, NO control group; excluded from rct_count (2010), opened July 16, 2026
- Epigallocatechin-3-gallate improves acne in humans by modulating intracellular molecular targets and inhibiting P. acnes — Journal of Investigative Dermatology — TIER 2, but its human endpoint is ACNE; its sebum data are in SEB-1 sebocytes (cell culture). Excluded from this claim. (2013), opened July 16, 2026
← Back to the verdict All excess oiliness products → Disclose a concentration or correct a fact →
No category-job specification exists for this category yet, so there is no job reading.
Listed for Blackheads, with no verdict: the actives here have no evidence row for that concern yet. That is a gap in our table, not a mark against the product.
- Blackheads: The actives here (Sulfur, Green Tea Extract, Licorice Root Extract) are in the research queue for blackheads; no verdict until their rows are written.
- Fungal-acne triggers
A verdict is Dermington’s assessment of how well a product’s ingredients fit a concern — never a claim about what the product treats. Every rule is public and the same for every product; a brand cannot buy a reading. How we decide · what has changed · disclaimer.