ArticleThe Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology2023
Reasons for Patient Call-backs while being Treated with Topical 5-fluorouracil: A Retrospective Chart Review.
Article in The Journal of clinical and aesthetic dermatology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To assess the frequency and character of adverse events (AE) associated with 5-FU and compare rate of these events to topical tacrolimus, another irritating topical treatment, as a control. Methods: Patients prescribed 5-FU for Actinic keratosis (AK) between 1/2015 to 10/2021 were contacted via phone to assess frequency of AE and why they did or did not contact their dermatologist via retrospective chart review. A similar retrospective chart review was done for patients prescribed topical tacrolimus between 1/2015 to 10/2021. Results: Participants frequently reported AE with 5-FU treatment (58%), which most commonly included redness or inflammation (38%) and burning, stinging, or pain (27%). There were 33 call backs for 5-FU (37 distinct questions) and the most common reasons included issues obtaining the medication (n=12) and inquiries about severe LSR (n=11). There were two call backs for topical tacrolimus related to issues obtaining the medication. Limitations: Topical tacrolimus as a control helps address the lack of objective assessment of AE severity and potential recall bias limitations of the study methodology. Conlcusion: Participants in our cohort frequently reported AE, and those who reported AE often contacted their dermatologist. The irritation induced by 5-FU is of greater severity compared to topical tacrolimus, as evidenced by much greater call-back rate. Addressing the risks and benefits of 5-FU, severity of LSR, and use of alternative treatments may improve AK treatment outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37361358PMC10286874W4382182785What 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.