ReviewDermatology practical & conceptual2025
Meta-Research Study on the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Evaluating Drug Therapy for Impetigo.
Review in Dermatology practical & conceptual, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionImpetigo is a common, highly contagious bacterial skin infection primarily affecting children. Treatment usually involves topical or oral antibiotics, and numerous clinical trials have been published to support these therapeutic approaches.
objectivesTo evaluate the methodological quality of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on the pharmacological treatment of impetigo in children and adolescents.
methodsThis meta-research evaluated RCTs on systemic or topical pharmacological treatments for impetigo in children and adolescents. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in September 2024 across MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and LILACS databases. The methodological quality of the included RCTs was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data are presented as percentages.
resultsTwenty-one RCTs on pharmacological treatments for impetigo were identified and assessed. The findings identified some methodological concerns: i) 53% to 57% of RCTs had an unclear risk of selection bias due to insufficient information on randomization and allocation concealment; ii) 71% were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel, while 57% had a high risk for blinding of outcome assessors; iii) 24% exhibited a high risk of attrition bias due to significant participant losses without justification; iv) 81% had an unclear risk of bias due to the lack of registered protocols available.
conclusionsBased on the methodological quality of the assessed RCTs, this study highlights the need for more rigorous design and reporting standards in future research on pharmacological treatments for impetigo to enhance the reliability and validity of the evidence, thereby supporting more informed clinical decision-making.
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.