ArticleAnnals of dermatology2021
Clindamycin Mono-Therapy of Hidradenitis Suppurativa Patients: A Single-Center Retrospective Study.
Article in Annals of dermatology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- European S2k guidelines for hidradenitis suppurativa/acne inversa part 2: Treatment.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2025Guideline
- Australasian hidradenitis suppurativa management guidelines.The Australasian journal of dermatology · 2025Guideline
- Real-world Efficacy of Sodium Hypochlorite Body Wash in Managing Hidradenitis Suppurativa.The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial Resistance Trends in Hidradenitis Suppurativa Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Systemic Antibiotic Therapy in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: A Review on Treatment Landscape and Current Issues.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Clindamycin Efficacy forAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA rifampicin (RF)-clindamycin (CL) combination therapy is recommended as the first-line treatment for moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS). Although the long-term use of RF requires caution due to the possibility of developing resistant bacteria, only a few studies have investigated alternatives for this combination therapy.
objectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of systemic CL mono-therapy and assess the prevalence and CL resistance of bacterial growth in HS patients.
methodsA total of 53 HS patients treated with CL mono-therapy were included. The efficacy was evaluated by identifying the rate of HS Clinical Response (Hi-SCR) achievers and comparing HS Physician's Global Assessment (HS-PGA) before (W0) and after (W8) the treatment. Purulent material from HS skin lesions was collected on the W0. Bacterial flora and antibiotic sensitivity were determined by bacterial cultures.
resultsOf 53 HS patients, 34 were eligible for evaluation of the efficacy of the therapy. Twenty-one patients (61.76%) achieved Hi-SCR. The mean scoring of HS-PGA had significantly decreased from 3.24 to 2.15 (
conclusionSystemic CL mono-therapy may be a safe and useful alternative to RF-CL combination therapy, and no significant difference in the efficacy of the therapy depending on the presence of CL-resistant bacteria was observed.
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.