ReviewCureus2025
Efficacy and Safety of Nemolizumab in Patients With Prurigo Nodularis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Conventional and Biologic Therapies in Prurigo Nodularis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.International journal of dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Emerging Therapies in the Treatment of Prurigo Nodularis: Biological Therapy and Systematic Review of Literature.Dermatology and therapy · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy and safety of nemolizumab in treating prurigo nodularis through a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across multiple databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science, identifying relevant studies until January 5th 2025. Four randomized controlled trials involving 859 participants were included in the final analysis. The primary outcomes assessed were itching response measured by the Worst Itch Numeric Rating Scale (WI-NRS) and Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) success. Nemolizumab demonstrated significant improvement in itch response compared to control, with a risk ratio of 3.52 (95% CI: 2.48 to 5.02, p < 0.00001) and low heterogeneity (I² = 28%). Similarly, IGA success rates were notably higher in the nemolizumab group, with a risk ratio of 4.40 (95% CI: 2.86 to 6.75, p < 0.00001) and low heterogeneity (I² = 11%). While adverse events were slightly more frequent in the nemolizumab group, the difference was not statistically significant (RR: 1.11, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.24). The analysis was limited by the small number of included trials, relatively short follow-up periods, and lack of subgroup analysis. Despite these limitations, the findings suggest that nemolizumab is an effective and well-tolerated treatment for prurigo nodularis. Further research with longer follow-up periods and larger, more diverse patient populations is recommended to establish the long-term efficacy and safety profile of nemolizumab in treating this condition.
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.