SynthesisActa dermato-venereologica2026
The Efficacy of Different Treatment Options in Cutaneous Sarcoidosis: A Meta-analysis of RCTs.
Synthesis in Acta dermato-venereologica, 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
Cutaneous sarcoidosis is a granulomatous skin disease associated with significant quality-of-life impairment. Evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) guiding systemic or targeted therapy remains limited. To assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological therapies for cutaneous sarcoidosis in randomized placebo-controlled trials PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched through January 2025. Eligible studies were RCTs including adults with cutaneous sarcoidosis randomized to pharmacological therapy versus placebo. Outcomes were clinical response, quality of life, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random-effects models. Six RCTs including 156 participants were analyzedanalysed. Pharmacological therapies did not significantly improve clinical response compared with placebo (OR 2.24; 95% CI, 0.73-6.90; p=0.16). A non-significant trend toward improved quality of life was observed (OR 2.23; 95% CI, 0.87-5.73; p=0.09). No significant difference in SAEsserious adverse events was found between groups (OR 0.97; 95% CI, 0.48-1.96; p=0.93). Risk of bias ranged from moderate to high, with low statistical heterogeneity. Pharmacological add-on therapies showed no significant efficacy beyond corticosteroids but may improve quality of life. Larger, well-designed RCTs are needed.
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.