SynthesisJournal of cosmetic dermatology2026
Comparative Efficacy of Photodynamic Therapy Versus Cryotherapy for Actinic Keratosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
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. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPhotodynamic therapy and cryotherapy are treatment options for actinic keratosis; however, their efficacy and safety remain debated.
aimsTo perform a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis exploring the efficacy and safety of photodynamic therapy and cryotherapy in actinic keratosis.
methodsA systematic search was performed applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, Science Direct, Ovid, EBSCO, Wiley, and Google Scholar for randomized controlled trials.
resultsA total of seven studies with 1233 patients were identified. PDT and cryotherapy showed similar success in clearing lesions (RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92-1.13; p = 0.74). While both treatments performed comparably on the head and face (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.94-1.28; p = 0.24), data from one trial suggested cryotherapy might be more effective for lesions on the arms and legs (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94; p < 0.05). However, more research is needed to confirm this finding. Cosmetic outcomes were significantly better for PDT (74.62% vs. 49.11%: RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.4-1.65; p < 0.00001) than cryotherapy. Similarly, PDT was superior to cryotherapy in patient satisfaction though the overall difference was not statistically significant (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 0.91-2.25; p = 0.12). PDT was associated with a significantly higher risk of burning sensations and pain (RR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.27-3.02; p = 0.002), whereas cryotherapy more frequently led to vesicles and blisters.
conclusionLesion clearance may depend on location. It is comparable for head and face lesions, while data from one trial suggests cryotherapy may be better for extremity lesions. PDT is associated with a higher occurrence of pain/burning, while cryotherapy leads to more vesicles/blisters. Future research should focus on standardized protocols, including blinded post-treatment assessments to improve reliability and minimize bias.
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.