ArticleAnnals of medicine2026
Comparative efficacy of intralesional therapies for keloid scars: a network meta-analysis.
Article in Annals of 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundKeloids are pathological scars causing pain, pruritus, and emotional distress. While common treatments exist, emerging options such as insulin and botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) are underrepresented in comparative analyses. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety profiles of various intralesional therapies for keloid scars.
methodsA PRISMA-guided search across seven databases was conducted on July 2025 and preregistered on PROSPERO (CRD420251088758). Included studies were randomized, non-randomized, and crossover trials of intralesional therapies. Pairwise and NMA were conducted for efficacy (keloid size/volume reduction), recurrence, and safety (adverse effects). Treatment rankings were based on surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores. Statistical significance was set at (
resultsFrom 51 studies (3234 participants, 23 interventions), 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) + corticoids significantly improved keloid reduction compared to corticoids alone (RR = 1.59; 95% CI: 1.31-1.92;
conclusionThis NMA provides a comparative overview, indicating that combination therapies, most notably 5-FU + corticoids + YAG:Laser, offer the greatest benefit. While data for novel agents (insulin and BTX-A) suggest potential, further research with standardized methodologies and longer-term follow-up is crucial to define optimal treatment algorithms.
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.