ArticleTrials2019
Harmonisation of Outcome Parameters and Evaluation (HOPE) for actinic keratosis: protocol for the development of a core outcome set.
Article in Trials, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of 4% 5-Fluorouracil Cream in Patients with Actinic Keratosis: An Expert Opinion.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2023Review
- Use of complete clearance for assessing treatment efficacy for 5-fluorouracil interventions in actinic keratoses: how baseline lesion count can impact this outcome.Journal of market access & health policy · 2020Article
- [Actinic keratoses : Current guideline and practical recommendations].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundActinic keratoses (AK) are common skin lesions that can progress to invasive squamous cell carcinoma of the skin. A variety of lesion- or field-targeted treatment options exist and their efficacy has been demonstrated in numerous randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, the reported endpoints are highly heterogeneous, making it difficult to assess and compare distinct treatment options and to reach an evidence-based choice of therapy.
methodsA systematic literature search will be conducted to analyse which endpoints are reported in RCTs. The focus will be on effectiveness, tolerability, cosmesis, and patient satisfaction. The reported endpoints of these studies, as well as their frequency and data collection times, will be documented in a standardised way to generate a comprehensive list of reported endpoints. In order to complete the identified outcomes in the literature search, focus groups on affected patients and structured interviews with board-certified dermatologists will be conducted to identify both patient- and practice-relevant endpoints. After the identification phase, the evaluation of the endpoints follows. In a two-stage Delphi procedure, experts including patient representatives will evaluate the endpoints in a standardised and transparent manner. A final face-to-face consensus meeting will be conducted after the last Delphi round in which a final list of core outcomes will be consented. DISCUSSION: The development of a standardised endpoint set for the treatment of AK will contribute to improving the comparability of therapeutic options. Our catalogue will enhance the synthesis of evidence for the future by reducing heterogeneity in outcomes between RCTs and hence contribute to improving the quality of research, evidence-based and patient-centred treatment.
trial registrationCore Outcome Measures for Effectiveness ( COMET ) database. Registered in December 2018.
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.