ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2021
How to Assess the Efficacy of Interventions for Actinic Keratosis? A Review with a Focus on Long-Term Results.
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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Canadian Expert Consensus Recommendations on the Use of Photodynamic Therapy in Actinic Keratosis.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Comparative Efficacy and Tolerability of Imiquimod 3.75% Cream vs 5-Fluorouracil 4% cream in the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis: A Split-Face Study.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2025Article
- Vascular Characteristics of Treatment-resistant and -responsive Actinic Keratosis Identified with Dynamic Optical Coherence Tomography.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2024Article
- Tirbanibulin 1% Ointment for Actinic Keratosis: Results from a Real-Life Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- The Promise of Semantic Segmentation in Detecting Actinic Keratosis Using Clinical Photography in the Wild.Cancers · 2023Article
- A Retrospective Study on Single-Stage Reconstruction of the Ear following Skin Cancer Excision in Elderly Patients.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.