SynthesisJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Intralesional MMR Vaccine and Vitamin D3 in Managing Nongenital Warts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of cosmetic dermatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Intralesional MMR Vaccine and Vitamin D3 in Managing Nongenital Warts: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2026Pooled it
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCutaneous warts are common benign lesions caused by human papillomavirus and often resist conventional treatments. Intralesional immunotherapy with measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine or vitamin D3 has emerged as an alternative, but their comparative efficacy and safety remain unclear.
methodsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including 742 patients comparing intralesional MMR with vitamin D3 for nongenital cutaneous warts. We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and ScienceDirect up to June 2025, and the protocol was registered in PROSPERO (ID: 1128443). Primary outcomes were complete, partial, and no response; secondary outcomes were recurrence and adverse events (erythema, pain, swelling). Pooled risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.
resultsVitamin D3 achieved lower complete clearance than MMR (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.75-0.96; p = 0.01) and a higher risk of no response (RR 2.40; 95% CI 1.40-4.13; p = 0.002). No significant differences were seen for partial response (RR 1.24; 95% CI 0.94-1.64; p = 0.13; I
conclusionsIntralesional MMR appears to be more effective than vitamin D3 for cutaneous warts, with superior clearance and distinct adverse event profiles. Larger, standardized trials are warranted to validate these effect sizes and optimize treatment strategies.
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.