SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Intralesional vitamin D versus triamcinolone acetonide for the treatment of keloids: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intralesional triamcinolone acetonide (TAC) remains the standard nonsurgical treatment for keloids but is limited by steroid-related adverse effects. Intralesional vitamin D has recently emerged as a potential alternative. This meta-analysis evaluated the comparative efficacy and safety of vitamin D versus TAC in keloid management. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library identified randomized controlled trials comparing these treatments. The primary outcome was scar improvement assessed using validated scales, while secondary outcomes included lesion flattening and treatment-related adverse events. Four trials were included. TAC demonstrated superior efficacy in improving scar severity (MD = -9.72; 95% CI -17.41 to -2.02;
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.