ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Management and Clinical Outcomes of Scleredema Diabeticorum: A Scoping Review.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesThe objective of this scoping review was to systematically map the available evidence for the management of scleredema diabeticorum (SD) to summarize the documented clinical outcomes with the aim to inform clinical practice and identify research gaps.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review identifying studies published in English from January 2005 to July 2025 through a comprehensive search of Scopus, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials, observational studies, case series, and case reports on treatment interventions and clinical outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and narratively and descriptively synthesized data.
resultsForty-five studies met the inclusion criteria: 39 single-patient case reports, five case series, and one multicenter observational study. The most common interventions were PUVA (8 studies, 14 patients; 12/14 improved, 85.7%), methotrexate (8 studies, 22 patients; 8/22 improved, 36.4%), and improved glycemic control (9 studies, 12 patients; mixed responses). Across small case reports/series, PUVA, UVA-1, and IVIG were most frequently reported as beneficial. Methotrexate monotherapy showed low and inconsistent effectiveness, with higher responses when combined with other agents. Other reported therapies included colchicine, electron-beam radiation, tranilast, and topical hyaluronidase.
conclusionsPUVA, UVA-1, and IVIG may offer benefit, while methotrexate alone is often ineffective. Evidence is predominantly from case reports and small series, which makes it difficult to generalize. Multicenter trials with standardized protocols are needed to develop evidence-based treatment recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.