Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34682859›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021

How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results.

Theresa Steeb, Anja Wessely, Anne Petzold, Lutz Schmitz, Thomas Dirschka, Carola Berking, Markus V Heppt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors.

Theresa SteebDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9008-0088
Anja WesselyDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1940-5115
Anne PetzoldDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Lutz SchmitzDepartment of Dermatology, Venereology and Allergology, Ruhr-University, 44791 Bochum, Germany.
Thomas DirschkaFaculty of Health, University Witten-Herdecke, 58455 Witten, Germany.
Carola BerkingDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Markus V HepptDepartment of Dermatology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, Friedrich-Alexander-University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), 91054 Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4603-1825

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Actinic keratoses (AK) are common lesions of the skin caused by cumulative sun exposure. Since AK may progress to invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), guidelines uniformly recommend early and consequent treatment. A variety of interventions are available; however, most randomized controlled trials, meta-analyses, and guidelines focus on outcomes that are usually evaluated 8-12 weeks after the end of treatment. Importantly, these assessments can capture the short-term, transient outcomes, but do not allow any conclusions about long-term results to be drawn and do not reflect the probability of transition towards cSCC. Until now, few studies have assessed the long-term results of interventions for AK. Indeed, finding the most appropriate end-point and adjunct time point for determining the long-term results of interventions for AK remains a challenge. Here, we provide an overview of the different ways of measuring the efficacy of AK treatments, such as using recurrence rates or sustained clearance rates, and discuss methodological aspects. Furthermore, we highlight the importance of evidence from post-marketing surveillance trials for the detection of efficacy values and safety signals. Additionally, we emphasize that a follow-up period of 12 months might not be sufficient to reflect the long-term results and stress the urgent need for a longer follow-up period and regular risk-stratified surveillance.

Indexed as

actinic keratosiscore outcomesfollow-uplong-term efficacymethodologypreventionsquamous cell carcinomasurveillance

Identifiers

PMID34682859
PMCPMC8538594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.