ArticleDermatology and therapy2018
A Systematic Scoping Literature Review of Publications Supporting Treatment Guidelines for Pediatric Atopic Dermatitis in Contrast to Clinical Practice Patterns.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTreatment guidelines endorse a variety of strategies for atopic dermatitis (AD) which may vary from published data and clinical practice patterns. The objective of this review was to quantify the volume of available medical literature supporting pediatric AD treatments and compare these patterns to those recommended by published guidelines and/or clinical practice patterns.
methodsSearches of Embase (2005-2016) and abstracts from selected meetings (2014-2016) related to AD treatment in patients younger than 17 years of age yielded references that were assessed by study design, primary treatment, age groups, and AD severity.
resultsPublished literature partially supports clinical guidelines, with emollients and topical medications being the most investigated. There were disproportionately more publications for topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCI) compared with topical corticosteroids (TCS); however, the search interval may have biased the results toward treatments approved near the beginning of the time frame. In contrast, publications documenting clinical practice patterns reflect greater use of emollients and TCS (over TCI), as well as systemic corticosteroids. Data is relatively limited for long-term and combination treatment, treatment of severe AD, and patients younger than 2 years of age, and completely lacking for systemic corticosteroids.
conclusionThis scoping review demonstrates that available medical literature largely supports published guidelines for topical therapy; however, clinical practice patterns are less aligned. There is a lack of data for older, more frequently used generic treatments, including oral antihistamines, oral antibiotics, and systemic corticosteroids. Overall, literature is lacking for long-term treatment, treatment for patients younger than 2 years of age, and for systemic treatment for severe disease.
fundingRegeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc.
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.