ArticleJAAD international2025
Expert consensus-based recommendations on the use of photodynamic therapy in actinic keratosis patients.
Article in JAAD international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Photodynamic Therapy for Keratinocytic Precancerous Lesions and Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: A Narrative Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Microbial Dysbiosis in Photodermatoses: Formation, Pathogenesis and Intervention Strategies.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Superior Induction of Apoptosis by Blue Light Compared to Red Light Photodynamic Therapy in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Keratinocytes.Journal of biophotonics · 2026Article
- Photodynamic Therapy in Dermatology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Robustness of interstitial photodynamic therapy treatment planning under power and positional uncertainties in light delivery.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Skin Cancer in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Review.American journal of clinical dermatology · 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Current actinic keratosis (AK) treatment guidelines are controversial and incomplete, leaving an unmet need for clearer and more in-depth guidance on the usage of photodynamic therapy (PDT) in AKs. Objective: To gain consensus on the use of PDT for AKs using a modified Delphi method. Methods: Consensus statements were developed after a literature review of topics surrounding PDT and AKs. Ten panelists voted through electronic questionnaires rating each statement on a three-point Likert-type scale: strongly agree, agree, and disagree. Consensus was established when ≥70% of panelists strongly agreed on the statement. Statements that did not meet the threshold were revised after each round of voting and sent out for the next round of voting. A virtual meeting was held after 2 rounds of voting to discuss outstanding statements. Results: Three modified Delphi rounds were completed in total and 1 virtual meeting was held. All 10 experts responded to all rounds of voting. A total of 55 statements established consensus with the ≥70% majority requirement necessary. Limitations: Recommendations are based on expert opinions. Conclusion: The results from this consensus panel are intended to bridge gaps in the existing guidelines and will continue to evolve.
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.