SynthesisInternational journal of clinical practice2014
Therapeutic management of anal eczema: an evidence-based review.
Synthesis in International journal of clinical practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation, management and future perspectives of anal pruritus: a narrative review.European journal of medical research · 2023Review
- [Differential diagnosis of anal eczema].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo conduct a systematic review of treatments for anal eczema (AE).
methodsWe conducted a Medline search for clinical trial data for the treatment of perianal diseases including AE, including papers not published in the English language. We assessed the study reports using the system recommended by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. No meta-analysis was attempted.
resultsThe evidence base for topical treatments used to treat AE is very poor: there are very few studies and many of those that exist are of poor quality. The best evidence was found for medications that are yet to be licensed for AE. Among products with existing licences for the treatment of eczema, our assessment found some evidence to support the continued use of mild-to-moderate corticosteroids first line in most patients. DISCUSSION: Features of the perianal region, and the fact that it is almost always occluded, mean that not all medications recommended in the general treatment guidelines for eczema are appropriate for AE. However, there are no specific treatment guidelines for these patients. This may in part be because of the lack of high-quality evidence-based medicine in this therapy area. Many frequently prescribed medications were developed and licensed many years ago, in an era when clinical trial design was not expected to be as rigorous as it is today.
conclusionThis review highlights the need to conduct more high-quality clinical trials in patients with AE in order that specific guidelines for the management of this difficult proctological condition can be prepared.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.