Trial reportArchives of dermatological research2025
Efficacy of pro-yellow laser versus cryotherapy in treating cutaneous lesions of Kaposi's sarcoma: a comparative study.
Trial report in Archives of dermatological research, 2025. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Pro-Yellow Laser (PYL) in treating plaque and patch lesions of classical Kaposi's Sarcoma (KS) and compare its outcomes with cryotherapy (CT). A single-blind, randomized, comparative experimental study was conducted on nine HIV-negative classical KS patients at Kocaeli University Dermatology Outpatient Clinic between April 2022 and April 2023. Each patient received both CT and PYL treatments on separate lesions. Lesions were scored based on surface area and depth before and after treatment, and percentage change (PC) was calculated. A total of 41 lesions were treated (16 with CT and 25 with PYL). CT achieved 100% median PC, while PYL showed a median PC of 42.58% (p = 0.008). No significant difference was observed between CT and PYL in macule/patch lesions (DS-1, p = 0.192), but CT was significantly more effective for papule/plaque lesions (DS-2, p = 0.048). CT caused minor side effects such as blistering and delayed healing, while PYL was well-tolerated with no adverse events. PYL demonstrated comparable efficacy to CT for early-stage KS lesions with fewer complications, making it a promising alternative for patients unable to tolerate CT. However, CT remains more effective for advanced lesions. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings in larger cohorts.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40128449What 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.