Do the popular keloid remedies actually work?

The claim you will see

“Vitamin E oil helps heal scars and flatten keloids”

Refuted — the evidence says the opposite

The best trial tested vitamin E on one half of each scar (Baumann & Spencer 1999, n=15, double-blind). In 90% of patients it made no difference or made the scar LOOK WORSE. A third of patients got an itchy rash from it. The authors said it "may actually be detrimental". Vitamin E is one of the few remedies with evidence AGAINST it, not just no evidence.

Documented harms of trying it: PMID 10417589

What the evidence supports instead: Vitamin E is one of the few treatments the evidence actively argues against. In a double-blind trial on split scars, 90% of patients saw no change or a worse result. A third of them got an itchy skin rash.

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Onion extract gel (Mederma, Contractubex) is clinically proven to improve scars and keloids”

Overstated — the evidence says less than the claim

The biggest analysis pooled 13 randomised trials (Yuan 2021). Onion extract beat doing nothing. It did not beat any other cream. It also caused MORE skin reactions (p<0.0001 vs nothing, p=0.008 vs other creams). The key trial (Chung 2006) found it worked no better than plain petroleum jelly — the comparison the marketing never makes.

The citation it rides on: PMID 33372412

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Garlic breaks down keloid tissue and prevents fibroblast growth — backed by published research”

Citation laundering — a real study attached to a claim it does not support

The trial these pages cite is tiny: 17 people, 30% garlic ointment, applied to ORDINARY SURGICAL WOUNDS — not keloids. Its main outcome was a subjective score. It is not a keloid study. Meanwhile at least six published case reports describe skin burns from home garlic application.

The citation it rides on: PMID 31490311
Documented harms of trying it: PMID 17040429 · PMID 41625932

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Apple cider vinegar shrinks keloids naturally when applied daily”

Untraceable — no source exists for this claim

There is no keloid evidence at ANY level — no trial, no case series, not even a lab study. What IS published: case reports of chemical burns from applying it, including a teenager hurt following an internet self-removal guide (JAAD 2012; J Clin Aesthet Dermatol 2015). The claim circulates with no citation because there is nothing to cite.

Documented harms of trying it: PMID 22980269 · PMID 26155328

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Honey and natural oils have been shown in studies to reduce keloid scarring”

Tier-inflated — a lab result sold as a clinical one

The cited papers are lab studies on cells in a dish — not people. No clinical trial of honey or plant oils for keloids exists. "Shown in studies" is technically true and misleading: the studies sit two evidence levels below the claim they are attached to.

The citation it rides on: PMID 21943200 · PMID 24489452

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Clinically proven to reduce the appearance of Keloid and Hypertrophic scars — 86% reduction in scar texture, 84% in colour, 68% in height”

Citation laundering — a real study attached to a claim it does not support

A regulator adjudicated this one. The UK ASA (ruling A25-1288314, 17 September 2025) examined every piece of evidence the advertiser submitted — and rejected each one. A literature review with no statistics. A 10-volunteer study with no scar patients. An unpublished thesis. An uncontrolled 32-patient trial. A silicone study in a DIFFERENT product format. The 86/84/68 numbers are real figures from a real study — attached to a product that study did not test. Breaches: CAP Code 3.1 (misleading), 3.2 (exaggeration), 3.7 (substantiation). Cochrane reached the same endpoint by another route: silicone for keloid rests on 2 trials, 36 people, every outcome very-low certainty.

The evidence behind this verdict: ASA ruling A25-1288314 · PMID 36594476

What the evidence supports instead: For keloids specifically, Cochrane found only two trials, totalling 36 people. It rated every outcome very low certainty. There is not enough evidence to say whether silicone sheeting helps.

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“92% of doctors and patients prefer embrace Active Scar Defense”

Untraceable — no source exists for this claim

No source for the 92% figure was located anywhere. No head-to-head trial against any competitor exists for it to have come from. The only independent evaluator-blinded trial of the device (NCT03294863, UC Davis) was STOPPED, its results sat unposted for about 4.5 years, and both posted estimates favour the CONTROL side.

The evidence behind this verdict: Trial NCT03294863

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“CryoShape is FDA approved for keloids with a 97% success rate without recurrence”

Refuted — the evidence says the opposite

Wrong on both counts. CryoShape has a 510(k) CLEARANCE (K060928), not an approval. The cleared use is generic tissue destruction during surgery — the word keloid appears nowhere in it. The 97% figure has no primary source anywhere in the literature. Series without control groups report 0–24% recurrence. The only randomised comparison (Dutch, 2018) was stopped early after 26 patients because results were unexpectedly WORSE. Its main documented harm is permanent loss of skin colour in darker skin — the people keloids affect most.

The evidence behind this verdict: FDA 510(k) K060928

What the evidence supports instead: CryoShape has FDA 510(k) clearance, not FDA approval. The cleared use is "intended to destroy tissue during surgical procedures by applying extreme cold". The word keloid does not appear in it.

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Microneedling can safely treat and flatten keloid scars”

Untraceable — no source exists for this claim

No clinical evidence for microneedling ON keloids was found at any level. The commercial pages themselves usually list keloid-prone skin as a reason NOT to microneedle. That warning makes biological sense — needle injury in keloid-prone skin — but it is itself sourced only to commercial pages. The treatment claim is uncited everywhere it appears.

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Unlike some procedures like laser therapy where recurrence is common, surgical reduction is considered a more permanent solution”

Refuted — the evidence says the opposite

This gets the risk ordering backwards. Surgery on its own is the treatment MOST likely to be followed by the keloid coming back — 45–100% in reviews, nearly 100% per the American Academy of Dermatology. That is exactly why every guideline pairs surgery with something else. And this one matters more than a garlic recipe. Published on a top-ranking page with a doctor's byline, it could steer a reader toward the one choice most likely to make their keloid worse.

The evidence behind this verdict: PMID 38463702 · American Academy of Dermatology

What the evidence supports instead: Surgery on its own is the treatment most likely to end with the keloid coming back. Reviews report between 45% and 100%. The American Academy of Dermatology puts it at nearly 100%. That is why surgery is almost always paired with something else.

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Verapamil injections work as well as steroids for keloids with fewer side effects”

Refuted — the evidence says the opposite

The only double-blind trial was STOPPED EARLY because verapamil was doing so much worse (Danielsen 2016). Keloids came back 8.4 times more often with verapamil than with the steroid (95% CI 1.62–44.05, p=0.01). A treatment stopped early for losing cannot be "as effective". It is a backup for people who cannot have steroids.

The evidence behind this verdict: PMID 26911400

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Dupilumab (Dupixent) is a breakthrough treatment that clears keloids”

Overstated — the evidence says less than the claim

The review behind the excitement covers 6 reports totalling 15 patients — Grade D evidence. Responses ranged from "significant improvement" to "no change" to "worsening". Two separate no-response series exist. Both registered trials finished in 2025; neither has reported results. The biology is contested too: keloid tissue shows several immune pathways at once, and the anti-IL-13 drug programme (QAX576) was stopped because the IL-13 signal was ABSENT.

The citation it rides on: PMID 39177869

Checked 2026-08-08

The claim you will see

“Verteporfin enables scarless healing and is the coming cure for keloids”

Tier-inflated — a lab result sold as a clinical one

Every verteporfin scar result is from animals: mice (Science 2021) and pigs (2025). Both tested PREVENTION at the moment of wounding — not treatment of an existing keloid. No verteporfin trial has ever dosed a human for scarring. The only two registered human scar trials are not yet recruiting, and both EXCLUDE people prone to keloids. For keloids specifically, ClinicalTrials.gov lists nothing at all.

The citation it rides on: PMID 33888614

Checked 2026-08-08