ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2024
Clinical Observation on the Therapeutic Effect of Port-Wine Stains with Intravenous Injection of Hematoporphyrin Monomethyl Ether (HMME).
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2024. 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.
- Recent progress in hematoporphyrin monomethyl ether-photodynamic therapy for port-wine stains: updates and insights.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Hematoporphyrin monomethyl ether (HMME) is a promising photosensitizer for photodynamic therapy (PDT) and has found wide application in the treatment of port-wine stains (PWS). Objective: This study aims to observe and analyze the clinical efficacy and safety of HMME-PDT in the treatment of PWS patients. It also aims to evaluate the usefulness of color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI), an ultrasound technique for detecting blood flow in skin lesions, in assessing clinical efficacy. Methods: Thirty-three patients with PWS underwent HMME-PDT at our dermatology outpatient clinic between January 2019 and March 2020. Data on patient demographics, lesion location, lesion type (pink, purple, nodular thickening), treatment frequency, and pre- and post-treatment images were collected and retrospectively analyzed. CDFI was performed on three patients. Results: All patients received intravenous HMME and underwent irradiation with 532 nm green LED light. Of these, 5 patients received 1 session of HMME-PDT, 14 received 2 sessions, 9 received 3 sessions and the remaining 5 patients received more than 3 sessions. Of the 33 patients, 9 were cured (27.27%), 10 showed improvement (30.30%), 11 experienced a reduction in symptoms (33.33%), and 3 showed no significant improvement (9.09%). Most patients reported local pain and oedema, and no systemic adverse effects were observed. Clinical efficacy correlated with lesion type and total number of treatment sessions. CDFI appears to be an excellent technique for assessing clinical efficacy. Conclusion: HMME-PDT is a safe and effective method for the treatment of PWS. CDFI examination appears to be a promising assessment tool. However, further validation with larger sample sizes is 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.