ReviewDermatology practical & conceptual2024
Comparative Analysis of Intralesional Immunotherapy and Conventional Treatments for Non-Genital Warts: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 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.
- Intralesional Immunotherapy for Non-Genital Viral Warts: A Review of Current Evidence and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWarts, benign skin growths caused by various human papillomavirus strains, are categorized as genital and non-genital. Non-genital warts often lack noticeable symptoms but can lead to psychological distress due to factors like embarrassment. Traditional treatments, including physical and chemical methods, show limitations, prompting the exploration of novel approaches like intralesional immunotherapy. The clinical challenge lies in selecting the most effective modality.
objectiveIn our study, we used the network meta-analysis (NMA) as a statistical tool to explore the most effective intralesional immunotherapy interventions.
methodsComprehensive searches of Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane, and Scopus databases were conducted until December 2023. Eligible studies were analyzed for outcomes presented as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Treatments were ranked using the P-score in an NMA performed with R software.
resultsWe included 68 RCTs in our study. For complete response, needling showed a significant difference compared to Candida albicans antigen (RR= 0.13, 95% CI [0.02; 0.99]) and Mw (RR= 0.12, 95% CI [0.02; 0.94]). In overall response, both bleomycin and furosemide with digoxin were significant compared to autoimplantation (RR= 0.46, 95% CI [0.24; 0.88]) and (RR= 0.40, 95% CI [0.18; 0.91]) respectively. Similarly, both were significant compared to cryotherapy (RR= 0.45, 95% CI [0.27; 0.76]) and (RR= 0.40, 95% CI [0.19; 0.82]) respectively.
conclusionThis NMA indicates needling, furosemide with digoxin, and PBP antigen stimulants as effective for non-genital warts, surpassing traditional treatments in complete and overall response. Direct comparisons in future research are warranted to confirm their superiority.
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.