ReviewCureus2023
The Effectiveness of Anti-Interleukin-17A Treatment for Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refractory pityriasis rubra pilaris treated with abrocitinib.Dermatology reports · 2025Article
- Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris Following COVID-19 Infection: A Case of Successful Treatment With Ixekizumab.Cureus · 2025Article
- Emerging Role of Biologic Drugs Targeting IL-17 and IL-23: Pityriasis Rubra Pilaris.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Anti-interleukin-17A (anti-IL-17A) therapy has been increasingly employed as a treatment option for pityriasis rubra pilaris (PRP). In this study, we reviewed all available studies on this topic in the literature to evaluate the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-17A. Our main objective was to assess the current evidence on the efficacy and safety of anti-IL-17A therapy in the management of PRP. We searched for relevant articles on PubMed, MEDLINE, Ovid, Embase, and the Web of Science electronic databases from inception until 2022. Our inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized trials, or prospective observational studies that include PRP patients treated with biological treatments; studies that report clinical outcomes; and studies that compare the treatment modalities, including anti-IL-17, in the English language. A total of 19 articles involving 77 cases were reviewed after applying the inclusion criteria and removing duplicates. We found that type 1 PRP was the most common condition irrespective of gender, and the trunk was the most affected area. The study showed that IL-17 inhibitors had a significant impact on the patients. However, higher-level studies are required to further evaluate the therapeutic and safety effects of the treatment.
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.