Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37632194›Full record

Trial reportSkin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI)2023

Comparing the efficacy of plasma exeresis and cryotherapy for the treatment of seborrheic keratosis: A randomized controlled trial.

Maryam Noorbakhsh, Yasamin Kalantari, Erfan Ghasemi, Babak Shokri, Hamidreza Mahmoudi, Maryam Daneshpazhooh, Ifa Etesami, Mohammadreza Khani

Erratum issuedOpen access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI), 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 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Comparing the efficacy of plasma exeresis and cryotherapy for the treatment of seborrheic keratosis: A randomized controlled trial.Skin research and technology : official journal of International Society for Bioengineering and the Skin (ISBS) [and] International Society for Digital Imaging of Skin (ISDIS) [and] International Society for Skin Imaging (ISSI) · 2023
    Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maryam NoorbakhshDepartment of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Yasamin KalantariDepartment of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8443-4591
Erfan GhasemiLaser and Plasma Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Babak ShokriLaser and Plasma Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Hamidreza MahmoudiDepartment of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1890-1005
Maryam DaneshpazhoohDepartment of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1020-8895
Ifa EtesamiDepartment of Dermatology, Razi Hospital, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3026-2485
Mohammadreza KhaniLaser and Plasma Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.
Razi Hospital · IRShahid Beheshti University · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeborrheic keratoses (SK) is a benign epithelial skin tumor and plasma exeresis is a new technique.

aimsTo compare the efficacy and safety of plasma exeresis and cryotherapy for treating SK.

methodsThis study is a randomized controlled trial (RCT). One side of each patient was randomly treated with plasma exeresis (peak-to-peak voltage of 3.44 kV and a frequency of 62.5 kHz) and the other side with cryotherapy.

resultsThirty-five males were enrolled. At week 3, 37.1 % (N = 13) of lesions treated by plasma exeresis were clear, which was higher than those treated by cryotherapy 17.1% (N = 6). However, this difference was not significant (p-value: 0.06). At week 6, 16 (57.1 %) out of 28 remaining lesions, treated by plasma exeresis were clear, which was significantly higher (p-value: 0.005) than those completely cleared by cryotherapy in 6 out of 29 remaining lesions (20.7%). The mean physician assessment scale score was significantly reduced in both groups in the second follow-up (plasma group first follow-up 0.91 ± 0.89 vs. second follow-up 0.5 ± 0.64 and p-value: 0.0031; cryo group first follow-up 1.4 ± 0.84 vs. second follow-up 1.1 ± 0.72 and p-value: 0.0002). Regarding side effects, no significant difference was seen (p = 0.438). The most common complications in the plasma and cryotherapy groups were erythema (10/19, 52.63%) and hypo pigmentation (5/13, 38.46%).

conclusionsBoth cryotherapy and plasma exeresis are effective. We observed a significantly higher cleared lesions treated with plasma exeresis in 6 weeks and after two sessions.

Indexed as

Keratosis, SeborrheicSkin NeoplasmsCryotherapyHumansMalePigmentationplasma exeresis seborrheic keratoses

Identifiers

PMID37632194
PMCPMC10374986
OpenAlexW4385347528

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.