ArticleDermatology practical & conceptual2025
Management of Local Skin Reactions Caused by 5-FU 4% Cream for the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis: A Delphi Consensus.
Article in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 2025. 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.
- A Prebiotic and Panthenol-Containing Repair Balm Improves Tolerability of Topical 5-Fluorouracil Field Therapy for Actinic Keratoses: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Dermatology and therapy · 2026Article
- Navigating the Challenges of Metallopharmaceutical Agents: Strategies and Predictive Modeling for Skin Cancer Therapy.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionTreatments such as 4% 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) cream have demonstrated strong efficacy in lesion clearance of actinic keratosis; however, local skin reactions (LSR) during treatment remain a significant challenge, potentially affecting patient adherence.
objectiveWe sought to build consensus on management of LSR associated with 4% 5-FU using the Delphi methodology.
methodsTwenty-eight expert dermatologists participated in a 3-round Delphi process. Experts evaluated LSR management strategies, including emollients, antibiotics, steroids, and treatment discontinuation. Agreement levels were measured using a 7-point Likert scale. Consensus was categorized as high if >80% of votes were within the 5-7 rating range and low when >25% were in the 1-3 rating range, with <25% of the votes in the 6-7 rating range. Other combinations of votes were considered as having moderate agreement.
resultsHigh agreement was achieved for the following statements: the approved daily schedule (once daily for 4 weeks) is the most appropriate (92.9%); mild LSR generally do not require intervention and do not impact treatment adherence (96.4%); severe LSR may benefit from temporary treatment interruption and emollient use, ensuring adherence without compromising efficacy (92.9%). The use of emollients (in parallel with the treatment with 5-FU) was considered not needed by most (moderate consensus, 64.3%). Experts emphasized the importance of clear communication about LSR during baseline consultation to enhance patient compliance.
conclusionThis consensus provides practical guidance for managing LSR induced by 4% 5-FU, ensuring high adherence and optimizing treatment outcomes. Further research is needed to validate these findings and explore alternative management approaches.
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.