ArticleDermatology and therapy2019
Local Management of Anogenital Warts in Non-immunocompromised Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- First proctological application of a noncontact nitrous oxide cryotherapy device treating nonmalignant intra- and perianal HPV-related lesions.Techniques in coloproctology · 2026Article
- Maternal HPV Infection: Effects on Pregnancy Outcome.Viruses · 2021Review
- Letter to the Editor Regarding 'A Multicentre, Randomised Clinical Trial to Compare a Topical Nitrizinc® Complex Solution Versus Cryotherapy for the Treatment of Anogenital Warts'.Dermatology and therapy · 2020Article
- Local Management of Anogenital Warts in Non-Immunocompromised Adults: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Dermatology and therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
introductionSeveral therapeutic options are available to manage anogenital warts (AGWs). However, no hierarchy of treatments is provided in the latest European and American recommendations. This study aimed to determine the efficacy and safety of local treatments for the management of AGWs.
methodsA search was conducted through 12 databases from inception to August 2018. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which at least one parallel treatment group composed of immunocompetent adults with AGWs received at least one provider-administered or patient-administered treatment were included. Risk of bias assessment and meta-analyses of aggregated study data were performed on the basis of the Cochrane Handbook, and quality of evidence evaluation followed the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Primary endpoints were complete clearance and recurrence at 3 months.
resultsSeventy RCTs (9931 patients) were included. All but four RCTs had a high risk of bias. CO
conclusionThe vast majority of included RCTs had a low level of evidence, thereby preventing the establishment of a hierarchy of treatments. Nevertheless, our results provide an overview of the main AGW treatments available for general practitioners and specialists. While provider-administered treatments are superior, patient-administered treatments (e.g., imiquimod, podophyllotoxin) are useful solutions for compliant patients. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42015025827.
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.