ArticleDermatology and therapy2023
Application and Comparison of Dermoscopy and Reflectance Confocal Microscopy in the Target Treatment of Genital Lichen Sclerosus: A Single-Arm Prospective Study.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Upadacitinib for refractory generalized lichen sclerosus: a case report and brief literature review.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- Utilizing reflectance confocal microscopy for surveillance of neoplastic changes in penile lichen sclerosus: A report of two cases.JAAD case reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe treatment of genital lichen sclerosus (GLS) remains challenging. Baricitinib has been introduced in the treatment of GLS, but there's no imaging evaluation for GLS patients treated with it. No comparison of dermoscopy and reflectance confocal microscopy (RCM) assessments in GLS has been conducted. We performed this study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of baricitinib for GLS and to compare the value of dermoscopy and RCM assessments in GLS.
methodsParticipants were treated with baricitinib for 6 months and assessed at week 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, and every 4 weeks for the next 16 weeks. All patients were evaluated for clinical, dermoscopic, and RCM variables, with numeric scores assigned to each parameter.
resultsTwenty-six GLS patients were included in this study. All patients achieved Investigator's Global Assessment score ≤ 1 (with ≥ 2-grade improvement) at week 20. The scores of pruritus and pain decreased since week 2 (both P < 0.05). The DLQI and VQLI scores significantly decreased since week 4 (both P < 0.0001). White structureless areas improved at week 2 and white shiny streaks and follicular plugs improved at week 4 under dermoscopic examination. Vessels (P < 0.001) and brown structureless areas (P = 0.003) increased at week 8. In RCM, inflammatory cells count significantly decreased at week 2 (100.03 ± 33.24, P < 0.0001), with substantial regression at week 8 (16.98 ± 5.54, P < 0.0001). Epidermal thickness increased at week 12 (157.44 ± 37.87 μm versus 134.13 ± 36.60 μm, P = 0.0284). Irregular papillae, spongiosis, and fiber structures improved at week 20, week 4, and week 6 (all P < 0.01). Transient hypercholesterolemia (11.54%), thrombocytosis (7.69%), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (7.69%) occurred during treatment.
conclusionBoth dermoscopy and RCM can be useful and non-invasive adjuvant tools for the evaluation and therapeutic monitoring of GLS. We recommended white structureless areas under dermoscopy and inflammatory cells count under RCM as variables for dermatologic imaging evaluation for GLS. Baricitinib is effective and safe for GLS, while randomized controlled trials are warranted.
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.