ArticleGMS hygiene and infection control2026
A comparative study of the therapeutic efficacy of various intralesional immunotherapies in extragenital cutaneous warts.
Article in GMS hygiene and infection control, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cutaneous warts are caused by human papilloma virus (HPV). Most of the current removal modalities are ablative which is associated with recurrence and scarring at the site. Immunotherapy can overcome these limitations, and also distant warts can be treated simultaneously. Aims: To compare the efficacy of three immunotherapeutic agents, measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine, Bacillus Calmette Guerin (BCG) vaccine, and vitamin D3 injection in the treatment of multiple extragenital cutaneous warts and to assess the safety and recurrence rates of different intralesional immunotherapeutic agents. Materials and methods: Sixty patients with extragenital cutaneous warts were enrolled in the study and randomized into three groups: Group A: MMR (0.5 mL of reconstituted MMR vaccine); Group B: BCG (0.1 ml BCG); and Group C: vitamin D3 (0.5 mL Inj. vitamin D3 600,000 IU; 15 mg/ml). A target wart was selected, and the intralesional injections were given at a three-week interval for a maximum of five doses. The response was observed in target and distant warts. Adverse effects were noted. Cases were followed up monthly for two months. Results: The baseline characteristics were comparable across MMR, BCG, and vitamin D3 groups. MMR showed significantly higher complete clearance at both injected (90%) and distant (80%) sites compared to BCG (60%, 40%) and vitamin D3 (25%, 20%) at the final follow-up. MMR was significantly superior to vitamin D3 (p=0.002) in injected warts and in distant warts (p=0.03) at last follow up. Intention-to-treat analysis and Kaplan-Meier survival confirmed a faster and more effective response with MMR (mean 5.3 weeks). Hazard ratios indicated a 95% and 99% lower probability of clearance with BCG and vitamin D3, respectively, compared to MMR. Pain was the most common adverse effect, being highest in vitamin D3 group (80%). There was recurrence in 3 cases in the MMR group, recurrence in 1 case and no recurrence in the vitamin D3 group upon follow-up. Conclusion: The intralesional MMR vaccine was found to be significantly more effective than BCG and vitamin D3 in treating extragenital cutaneous warts. This makes immunotherapy a promising modality for the treatment of multiple and recalcitrant extragenital cutaneous warts.
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.