ReviewArchives of dermatological research2024
Actinic keratosis metrics.
Review in Archives of dermatological research, 2024. 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.
- Article
- MMP-2-Potential Predictor of Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Squamous Cell Carcinogenesis.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Actinic keratosis (AK) is a common precancerous skin condition predominantly affecting older males with fair skin and significant UV exposure. The clinical significance of AK is related to its potential for malignant transformation and progression to squamous cell carcinoma (SCC). Accurate diagnosis of AK is essential for adequate treatment, evaluation of therapeutic efficacy, and mitigating the risk of developing SCC. However, clinician variability due to the subjective nature of current diagnostic tools presents significant challenges to achieving consistent and reliable AK diagnoses. Thus, there is no universally accepted standard for measuring AK.This review evaluates current methods for evaluating and diagnosing AK, focusing on clinician variability through inter- and intraobserver agreement. Eight peer-reviewed studies investigating the reliability of various approaches for AK evaluation show substantial variability in interobserver or intraobserver agreement, with most methods demonstrating only slight to moderate reliability. Some suggest that consensus discussions and simplified rating scales can modestly improve diagnostic reliability. However, remaining variability and the lack of a universally accepted standard for measuring AK underscore the need for more robust and standardized diagnostic and evaluation methods.The review emphasizes the need for improved diagnostic tools and standardized methods to enhance the accuracy and reliability of AK assessments. It also proposes applying a novel examination approach using 1,3-dihydroxyacetone (DHA) staining which may improve the visualization and identification of AK lesions. Advancements in these areas have significant potential, promising better clinical practices and patient outcomes in AK management.
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.