ArticleBioinformation2026
Comparison of intralesional 5-fluorouracil versus intralesional triamcinolone acetonide for keloid treatment: A prospective randomised double-blind controlled study.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Keloid scars pose significant treatment challenges due to excessive collagen deposition, causing pain, functional impairment and psychological distress despite multiple available interventions. Therefore, it is of interest to compare intralesional 5-fluorouracil (5-FU, 50 mg/mL) versus triamcinolone acetonide (40 mg/mL) in 30 patients randomly assigned to two equal groups. Vancouver Scar Scale parameters (height, pliability, vascularity, pigmentation), pain (Visual Analogue Scale) and pruritus were assessed at treatment end and 2-month follow-up. Both treatments achieved significant VSS improvement (p<0.001), with 93.3% 5-FU and 100% triamcinolone patients reaching total VSS ≤5; 5-FU showed faster response (40% endpoint by session 5 vs 20%) and fewer adverse reactions. Intralesional 5-FU emerges as a superior, less toxic alternative to triamcinolone for keloid management, offering equivalent efficacy with quicker clinical response and better safety profile.
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.