ArticleIndian journal of dermatology
A Randomized Comparative Study of MIP and MMR Vaccine for the Treatment of Cutaneous Warts.
Article in Indian journal of dermatology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Intralesional MMR Vaccine and Vitamin D3 in Managing Nongenital Warts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Intralesional Immunotherapy for Non-Genital Viral Warts: A Review of Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Functional Characterization of MIP_07528 ofBiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Systematic Review of Intralesional Therapies for Cutaneous Warts.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2024Review
- Review
- Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate and compare the efficacy of MMR vaccine and MIP vaccine for resolution of Cutaneous warts (Cw).
methodsThe hospital-based prospective randomized interventional study was done where a total of 60 patients of Cw were divided into two groups of 30 patients each: Group A received 0.1 ml of intralesional injection of MIP vaccine and Group B received 0.5 ml of MMR vaccine. The treatment protocol involved three intralesional injection of vaccines at intervals of 3 weeks (maximum of three injections). The follow-up was done every 4 weeks for at least 24 weeks for the comparison of the two groups. The primary outcomes were the decrease in size of the wart or clearance of primary warts. The secondary outcomes were the improvement in the distant warts and any complications related to the use of vaccines. The data were entered in MS Excel and analyzed using SPSS 17.0 version. A P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsThe baseline demographic and wart characteristics were comparable between the two groups (P > 0.05). As compared to MMR, MIP showed an early (9.41 vs 11.71 weeks,
conclusionIn conclusion, MIP intralesional injections have a quicker response and are more efficacious compared to MMR in the treatment of Cw, though each vaccine carries its own sets of side effects.
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.