ReviewDermatology and therapy2025
Systematic Literature Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Topical Treatments for Patients with Atopic Dermatitis.
Review in Dermatology and therapy, 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.
- The Neuroimmune Axis in Atopic Dermatitis: From Pathogenic Mechanisms to Targeted Neuroimmunotherapy.Journal of inflammation research · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn Japan, atopic dermatitis (AD) is one of the most common skin diseases, with the number of patients steadily increasing in recent years. Thus, it is crucial to assess the efficacy and safety of currently existing and recently introduced new treatments.
methodsA systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of existing standard topical therapies and new topical treatments for AD. Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and ICHUSHI were used to select studies. The Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score and Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) score were efficacy outcomes, whereas any serious adverse events (AEs), acne, and skin infections were safety outcomes. A Bayesian multiple treatment NMA with fixed effects was performed. Odds ratio with 95% credible interval (CrI) was used to compare the outcomes of different topical medications including placebo for AD.
resultsA total of 11 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adult patients with varying degrees of AD severity were selected for NMA. The systematic review showed improvement in EASI scores with difamilast 0.3% and 1% and tacrolimus 0.1% as well as in IGA score success rates with difamilast 1%, delgocitinib 3%, and tacrolimus 0.1%. According to NMA, at week 4, difamilast 1% twice daily (BID) showed a significant improvement in the IGA score and percent EASI score change from baseline versus placebo; however, compared to other comparators, point estimates numerically favoured difamilast 1% but were not statistically significant. Difamilast 1% BID showed a significantly lower incidence of acne than delgocitinib 0.3% BID. There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of serious AEs, acne, and skin infections compared to placebo or other comparators.
conclusionThis study establishes the efficacy and safety of current topical treatment options and recently marketed delgocitinib and difamilast ointments for AD in Japan.
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.