SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Therapeutic strategies for idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) is a rare chronic inflammatory breast disease characterized by a prolonged clinical course with recurrent episodes, and the optimal treatment remains controversial. Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated medical, surgical, and combined treatment strategies, but their conclusions remain inconsistent. Methods: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for systematic reviews or meta-analyses evaluating remission, recurrence, and safety in patients with IGM or related granulomatous mastitis. The search period extended from database inception to 13 March 2026. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR-2. Additionally, the overlap of primary studies across the reviews was evaluated using a citation matrix and the Corrected Covered Area (CCA). Results: Six reviews published between 2017 and 2026 were included, comprising five conventional systematic reviews/meta-analyses and one network meta-analysis. Overall methodological quality was suboptimal, with three reviews rated as low and three as critically low. Across the included reviews, steroid-based combination therapy showed the most consistent favorable signal, particularly for recurrence reduction. In the network meta-analysis, triple therapy consisting of surgery, local steroid injection, and systemic corticosteroids ranked most favorably for recurrence control. Local steroid therapy and methotrexate-based therapy also appeared promising, particularly as better-tolerated alternatives or adjuncts to systemic corticosteroids. In contrast, systemic corticosteroid monotherapy and conservative approaches appeared less favorable for long-term recurrence control. Across the six reviews, 97 unique primary studies and 113 total study occurrences were identified, yielding a CCA of 3.30%, indicating slight overlap. Conclusion: Steroid-based combination therapy showed the most consistent favorable signal, particularly for recurrence reduction. Local steroid therapy and methotrexate-based therapy also appeared promising in selected clinical contexts. However, the overall certainty of the evidence remains limited because of methodological weaknesses in the included reviews and the predominantly observational nature of the underlying literature. Further high-quality comparative research is needed before firm treatment recommendations can be established. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier [CRD420261337622].
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.