SynthesisActa dermato-venereologica2026
Photodynamic Diagnosis of Actinic Keratosis: A Systematic Review.
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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Actinic keratosis (AK) is a precancerous condition typically diagnosed by hyperkeratotic papules. The concept of field cancerization suggests subclinical lesions surround visible actinic keratoses. Photodynamic diagnosis (PDD)is a non-invasive imaging modality that can im-prove actinic keratosis diagnosis and treatment assessment. This systematic review describes current evidence regarding photodynamic diagnosis modalities for actinic keratosis. We searched MEDLINE and Embase through 28 February, 2025. Data synthesis was descriptive due to methodological heterogeneity across studies. Thirty-seven studies were included. Methyl aminolevulinate(MAL) and aminolevulinic acid (ALA)were used in 54% and 51% of studies, respectively. Incubation times ranged from 20 to 1080 min, 70 % of studies followed a 3 -h protocol. Most excitation sources (89%) emitted light within the 400-410 nm range, often via clinical-grade systems (54%). Imaging hardware varied: 54 % used integrated clinical systems, 30 % used independent cameras. Fluorescence quantification was described in 62 % of studies, and 54 % used specialized analysis software. Patient positioning was rarely reported (8%). This review highlights significant methodological heterogeneity in actinic keratosis photodynamic diagnosis, particularly in photosensitizer protocols and imaging systems. While clinical-grade systems provide standardization, low-cost alternatives enhance accessibility. However, lack of procedural consistency limits comparability. Future efforts should focus on advancing standardized protocols to support broader clinical validation and adoption.
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.