Classification of Acne

  • Gerd Plewig
  • Albert M. Kligman


Nosology does not rank high among the interests of acne researchers. Yet the lack of a common international standard for classifying and grading the severity of acne has been a distressing source of confusion and controversy. The result is that epidemiological data and classifications from different sources cannot be compared because the criteria are different. This adversely affects every field of investigation, for example, surveys concerning the prevalence of acne in different countries. At present we have no information about whether acne is more prevalent in meat eaters than in vegetarians, in cold climates compared with warm ones, in different ethnic groups, etc. What dermatologists may classify as severe acne in Japan might be considered mild by American dermatologists.


Severe Acne Meat Eater Inflammatory Acne Facial Acne Acne Conglobata 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Allen BS, Smith JG Jr. (1982) Various parameters for grading acne vulgaris. Arch Dermatol 118: 23–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Burke BM, Cunliffe WJ (1984) The assessment of acne vulgaris the Leeds technique. Br J Dermatol 111: 83–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cook CH, Centner RL, Michaels SE (1979) An acne grading method using photographic standards. Arch Dermatol 115: 571–575PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cunliffe WJ (1989) Acne. Dunitz, London, pp 115–122Google Scholar
  5. Doshi A, Zaheer A, Stiller MJ (1997) A comparison of acne grading systems and proposal of a novel system. Int J Dermatol 36: 416–418PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lucky AW, Barber BL, Girman CJ, Williams J, Ratterman J, Waldstreicher J (1996) A multirated validation study to assess the reliability of acne lesion counting. J Am Acad Dermatol 35: 559–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Motley RJ, Finlay AY (1989) How much disability is caused by acne? Clin Exp Dermatol 14: 194–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Brien SC, Lewis JB, Cunliffe WJ (1998) The Leeds revised acne grading system. J Dermatol Treat 9: 215–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Parish LC, Witkowski JA (1978) The acne scoreboard. Int J Dermatol 17: 490–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Report of the Consensus Conference on Acne Classification (1991) Washington, DC, March 24 and 25,1990. J Am Acad Dermatol 24: 495–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Samuelson JS (1985) An accurate photographic method for grading acne: initial use in a double-blind clinical comparison of minocycline and tetracycline. J Am Acad Dermatol 12: 461–467PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Shalita AR, Leyden J J, Kligman AM (1997) Reliability of acne lesion counting. J Am Acad Dermatol 37: 672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Wilson RG (1980) Office application of a new acne grading system. Cutis 25: 62–64PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Witkowski JA, Parish LC, Guin JD (1980) Acne grading methods. Int J Dermatol 116: 517–118Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerd Plewig
    • 1
  • Albert M. Kligman
    • 2
  1. 1.Klinik und Poliklinik für Dermatologie und Allergologie Klinikum MünchenLudwig-Maximilians-Universität MünchenMünchenGermany
  2. 2.Department of DermatologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations