SynthesisJournal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG2026
Systemic immunomodulating therapies for epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis): A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Systemic immunomodulating therapies for epidermal necrolysis (Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis): A systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal der Deutschen Dermatologischen Gesellschaft = Journal of the German Society of Dermatology : JDDG · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesEpidermal necrolysis is a rare but severe cutaneous reaction with high mortality. Limited evidence exists regarding the efficacy of systemic immunomodulatory therapies (SITs). Our systematic review aimed to compare SITs with supportive care or one another. PATIENTS AND
methodsRandomized controlled trials and controlled observational studies (≥ 5 patients of all ages per arm) using the international consensus classification for EN (Bastuji-Garin, 1993) with no significant baseline differences were included. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL (January 1, 1993-January 22, 2024). Two reviewers independently extracted study and outcome data. A random-effects meta-analysis was performed.
resultsThe main outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital stay duration, time to complete reepithelialization, complications, and sequelae. 43 studies with 58 treatment comparisons were analyzed. Cyclosporine was superior to IVIG regarding mortality (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.05-0.58), and corticosteroids plus IVIG reduced serious complications compared to corticosteroids alone (sepsis, RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31-0.77). Compared to supportive care, only etanercept showed a significant mortality benefit (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.11-0.93; GRADE: imprecision/unclear clinical importance).
conclusionsThere is no clear evidence of the superiority of SITs over supportive care, which remains the primary treatment for EN.
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.