ArticleActa dermato-venereologica2024
Exploring Patient Pain Experiences during and after Conventional Red Light and Simulated Daylight Photodynamic Therapy for Actinic Keratosis: A Qualitative Interview Study.
Article in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- The Evolving Landscape of Actinic Keratosis: Field Therapy, New Drugs, and Future Directions.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Review
- Indoor Daylight Photodynamic Therapy for Actinic Keratosis of the Scalp: Intrapatient Comparison Study of 1 h versus 2 h Exposure Time.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- The Role of MALDI-TOF Mass Spectrometry in Photodynamic Therapy: From Photosensitizer Design to Clinical Applications.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Simulated daylight photodynamic therapy is a relatively new and potentially less painful alternative to conventional red light photodynamic therapy for actinic keratosis. Qualitative research exploring patient experiences of pain and skin reactions during these treatments is scarce. To address this, semi-structured interviews were conducted of 10 patients aged 60-81 years with symmetrically distributed actinic keratoses 4 weeks after split-face treatment with conventional red light photodynamic therapy and simulated daylight photodynamic therapy. The participants were recruited from an ongoing clinical randomized trial. Interviews (median length 35 min) were conducted between June 2022 and January 2023, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed qualitatively using content analysis, as described by Graneheim and Lundman. Participants reported that conventional red light photodynamic therapy was very painful during illumination and transiently painful in the post-treatment period, while simulated daylight photodynamic therapy was almost painless during illumination and led to minor post-treatment pain. Also, skin reactions were more intense and longer-lasting with conventional red light photodynamic therapy than with simulated daylight photodynamic therapy. Most participants expressed a treatment preference for simulated daylight photodynamic therapy but had reservations about its unestablished long-term effectiveness. This study underscores the considerable pain associated with conventional red light photodynamic therapy, and the pivotal importance of shared decision-making when selecting the most appropriate 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.