ArticleHealth science reports2025
Unlocking Better Keloid Treatment: Corticosteroid, 5-Fluorouracil, and Hyaluronidase vs. Corticosteroid Alone - A Randomized Comparative Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative efficacy of intralesional therapies for keloid scars: a network meta-analysis.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- Transient Receptor Potential (TRP) Channels as Fundamental Regulators of Fibrosis and Pruritus-A New Therapeutic Target for Pathological Scar Management.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Letter to the Editor: Unlocking Better Keloid Treatment: Corticosteroid, 5-Fluorouracil, and Hyaluronidase vs. Corticosteroid Alone-A Randomized Comparative Study.Health science reports · 2025Article
- The quality and reliability of keloid-related videos on TikTok: A cross-sectional study.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Keloids are challenging lesions to manage due to their resistance to treatment and high recurrence rates. This study evaluated the efficacy of an intralesional injection combining triamcinolone acetonide, 5-fluorouracil, and hyaluronidase compared with triamcinolone monotherapy in treating keloids. Methods: This single-blinded clinical trial involved 16 participants, block-randomized into two groups. The intervention group received intralesional injections of triamcinolone acetonide (0.2 cc of 40 mg/cc solution), 5-fluorouracil (0.4 cc of 250 mg/5cc vial), and hyaluronidase (0.2 cc equivalent to 300 IU). The control group received triamcinolone acetonide (0.2 cc of 40 mg/cc solution) with 0.6 cc lidocaine of 2%. Keloid characteristics were assessed before treatment, after three injections at 3-4-week intervals, and 2 months posttreatment. Results: Significant improvements were observed in both groups. However, the intervention group showed greater reductions in lesion height, pliability, and modified Vancouver scar scale scores compared to the control group. No complications resulted from our interventional injection during the study period, while telangiectasia occurred with triamcinolone monotherapy. Conclusion: These findings suggest that triple therapy was as effective as steroid monotherapy, with better outcomes in specific aspects of scar improvement and without side effects. Hyaluronidase could be promising for further research in this area.
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.