Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35465033›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2022

Approaches to Field Therapy for Actinic Keratoses: Relating Clinical Trial Results to Real-world Practice-A Commentary.

David M Pariser

Open access · greenAbstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

David M PariserDr. Pariser is with the Department of Dermatology at Eastern Virginia Medical School and Virginia Clinical Research, Inc. in Norfolk, Virginia.
Eastern Virginia Medical School · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There have been multiple direct and indirect comparison studies evaluating different field therapies used in the treatment of actinic keratosis (AK). A recent clinical trial directly compared 5% fluorouracil (5-FU), imiquimod, ingenol mebutate, and methyl aminolevulinate photodynamic therapy (MAL-PDT), reporting that 5-FU was superior to the other treatments in achieving sustained clearance of 75 percent or greater of AK lesions compared to baseline. In this commentary, the author reviews and discusses the methods and results of this comparison study and propose these results are limited by a number of factors, such as the selected primary % clearance endpoint, grade range of included AKs, and treatments included in the comparison, when considered in the context of other clinical and real-world comparison studies evaluating AK field therapies. The author postulates that patient acceptance of and adherence to field therapy regimens for the treatment of AK may be better evaluated in a real-world setting. Additionally, the author suggests that selection of field therapy in the treatment of AK should be driven by consideration of relevant patient-, disease-, and treatment-related factors, and what is considered best may differ from patient to patient, depending on each patient's individual needs and expectations.

Indexed as

5-fluorouracilcancerizationCompliancediclofenacimiquimodingenol mebutatephotodynamic therapy

Identifiers

PMID35465033
PMCPMC9017667
OpenAlexW4224437005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.