ArticleGland surgery2025
Evaluating the efficacy of topical steroids in idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: a prospective cohort study.
Article in Gland surgery, 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.
- Efficacy and safety of adalimumab as first-line therapy for treatment-naïve granulomatous lobular mastitis: an exploratory real-world study with propensity score-matching analysis.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Clinical factors of prolonged treatment duration in patients with non-puerperal mastitis.Gland surgery · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oral steroids are recommended as the first-line treatment for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM), but frequently induce significant side effects. Topical steroid therapy has recently emerged as a potential alternative for IGM, however current evidence regarding the efficacy of topical steroids remains scarce, primarily derived from small case series and retrospective reports. This prospective, observational cohort study evaluated the outcomes of patients with IGM treated with topical steroids. Methods: From January 2022 to October 2024, 76 patients diagnosed with IGM and treated with topical steroid therapy at West China Hospital were prospectively included in the study. Inclusion criteria comprised adult females with histologically confirmed IGM who were treatment-naive. At baseline, we recorded demographic data, clinical manifestations, as well as lesion size and location. Clinical evaluations incorporating both physical examination (PE) and ultrasonographic findings were performed biweekly to assess treatment response. Primary outcomes included symptom resolution, lesion size reduction, recurrence rates, and treatment-related adverse events. Follow-up was conducted at 1, 3, and 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter. Results: The median age at IGM diagnosis was 33.2 years. Clinical presentations included unilateral breast masses in nearly all cases (97.5%), with 75% of lesions measuring 2-5 cm in diameter. Breast pain was reported by 67.1% of patients; 64.3% (45/70) of patients responded to topical steroid therapy, with a complete remission (CR) rate of 32.9%. The median time to CR was 60 days. The presence of a breast abscess was associated with significantly reduced response to the treatment (P=0.009). During a median follow-up of 63 days, only 4 patients (8.9%) experienced recurrence. Adverse effects were limited to local issues (e.g., erythema, skin atrophy) with no systemic side effects reported. Conclusions: Topical steroids represent a feasible alternative to oral steroids for select IGM patients, particularly due to their reduced risk of systemic adverse effects. When a breast abscess develops, other intervention should be undertaken promptly.
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.