Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28579816›Full record

ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2017

Tattoo removal with ingenol mebutate.

Sarah-Jane Cozzi, Thuy T Le, Steven M Ogbourne, Cini James, Andreas Suhrbier

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
8.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah-Jane CozziInflammation Biology Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane.
Thuy T LeInflammation Biology Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane.
Steven M OgbourneGenecology Research Center, Faculty of Science, Health, Engineering and Education, University of the Sunshine Coast, Maroochydore DC, QLD, Australia.
Cini JamesInflammation Biology Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane.
Andreas SuhrbierInflammation Biology Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane.
QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute · AUUniversity of the Sunshine Coast · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An increasing number of people are getting tattoos; however, many regret the decision and seek their removal. Lasers are currently the most commonly used method for tattoo removal; however, treatment can be lengthy, costly, and sometimes ineffective, especially for certain colors. Ingenol mebutate is a licensed topical treatment for actinic keratoses. Here, we demonstrate that two applications of 0.1% ingenol mebutate can efficiently and consistently remove 2-week-old tattoos from SKH/hr hairless mice. Treatment was associated with relocation of tattoo microspheres from the dermis into the posttreatment eschar. The skin lesion resolved about 20 days after treatment initiation, with some cicatrix formation evident. The implications for using ingenol mebutate for tattoo removal in humans are discussed.

Indexed as

ingenol mebutatemousetattoo

Identifiers

PMID28579816
PMCPMC5448692
OpenAlexW2619900427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.