ReviewDermatology research and practice2015
Actinic Keratosis Clinical Practice Guidelines: An Appraisal of Quality.
Review in Dermatology research and practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Treatment of actinic keratosis through inhibition of cyclooxygenase-2: Potential mechanism of action of diclofenac sodium 3% in hyaluronic acid 2.5.Dermatologic therapy · 2019Review
- Unlicensed medicines use: a UK guideline analysis using AGREE II.The International journal of pharmacy practice · 2018Article
- Use and Cost of Actinic Keratosis Destruction in the Medicare Part B Fee-for-Service Population, 2007 to 2015.JAMA dermatology · 2018Article
- Successful Treatment of Actinic Keratosis with Kanuka Honey.Case reports in dermatological medicine · 2018Article
- Factors influencing response to ingenol mebutate therapy for actinic keratosis of face and scalp.World journal of clinical oncology · 2017Article
- Variation in the Cost of Managing Actinic Keratosis.JAMA dermatology · 2017Article
- Efficacy and Safety of 5-Fluorouracil 0.5%/Salicylic Acid 10% in the Field-Directed Treatment of Actinic Keratosis: A Phase III, Randomized, Double-Blind, Vehicle-Controlled Trial.Dermatology and therapy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Actinic keratosis (AK) is a common precancerous skin lesion and many AK management guidelines exist, but there has been limited investigation into the quality of these documents. The objective of this study was to assess the strengths and weaknesses of guidelines that address AK management. A systematic search for guidelines with recommendations for AK was performed. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) was used to appraise the quality of guidelines. Multiple raters independently reviewed each of the guidelines and applied the AGREE II tool and scores were calculated. Overall, 2,307 citations were identified and 7 fulfilled the study criteria. The Cancer Council of Australia/Australian Cancer Network guideline had the highest mean scores and was the only guideline to include a systematic review, include an evidence rating for recommendations, and report conflicts of interest and funding sources. High-quality, effective guidelines are evidence-based with recommendations that are concise and organized, so practical application is facilitated. Features such as concise tables, pictorial diagrams, and explicit links to evidence are helpful. However, the rigor and validity of some guidelines were weak. So, it is important for providers to be aware of the features that contribute to a high-quality, practical document.
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.