ArticleCureus2025
Comparing the Effect of Intralesional 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU) Alone Versus Intralesional 5-FU Combined With Triamcinolone Acetonide for Keloid Treatment.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
introductionKeloid is a benign hyper-proliferative growth of dermal fibroblasts, which extends beyond the borders of the original wound. It does not regress spontaneously and has the tendency to recur after excision.
objectivesTo compare the efficacy of intralesional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) alone versus intralesional 5-FU combined with triamcinolone acetonide (TCA) in the treatment of keloids. METHODOLOGY: This prospective observational study was conducted at the Department of Dermatology, Sheikh Zayed Hospital, Lahore, Pakistan, from July 2018 to July 2019. In this study, 66 cases, 33 in each group of aged 15-50 years having keloid of at least three or more on the Vancouver scar scale (VSS) score lasting less than five years, were included. The 66 patients were categorized into two equal groups. Group A was treated with 5-FU alone, and group B with 5-FU combined with TCA. Efficacy was defined as achieving a VSS score of 0 after eight weeks of treatment.
resultsFrom the 66 patients, there were 19 (57.58%) males in group A and 15 (46.88%) in group B. There were a total of nine (27.27%) cases of diabetes mellitus (DM) in group A and eight (24.24%) in group B. There were 12 (36.36%) and 10 (30.30%) hypertensive cases in groups A and B, respectively. Compliance was 100% in both groups. Efficacy in group A was seen in 25 (75.76%) cases and 32 (96.97%) cases in group B, with a p-value of 0.02. This efficacy was significantly better in group B in terms of male gender, where it was seen in 100% of cases in group B compared to 13 (68.42%) of cases in group A, with a p-value of 0.02. There was no significant difference in terms of age groups, BMI, and hypertension (HTN). The efficacy in diabetics was nearly significantly better in group B, where it was seen in 100% of the cases (p = 0.08).
conclusionBoth groups are efficacious for the treatment of keloid; however, the combination of 5-FU and TCA revealed greater efficacy, and it was significantly better than 5-FU alone. The results were again significantly better in terms of efficacy in the male gender and those who had keloids for more than one year.
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.