ArticleTranslational pediatrics2026
Efficacy and safety of oral propranolol combined with intralesional injection of lauromacrogol for infantile hemangioma: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Translational pediatrics, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The efficacy and safety of oral propranolol (PRO) combined with intralesional injection of lauromacrogol (LAU) in infantile hemangioma (IH) remains unclear. This study aimed to further identify the efficacy and safety of PRO combined with intralesional injection of IH by comparison with PRO or LAU monotherapy. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and VIP databases were searched up to April 23, 2026. Endpoints of efficacy included the cure rate (reduction in size >75%), significant rate (reduction in size >50%), effective rate (reduction in size >25%) and treatment time. The incidence of adverse reactions was investigated to evaluate the safety. Results: Eight available studies were included, with four randomized controlled trials (RCTS) and four retrospective studies. A total of 668 patients were enrolled, among whom 318 patients were in the PRO + LAU group. By comparison with patients in the PRO group, patients in the PRO + LAU group revealed higher cure rate [odds ratio (OR) =3.22, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.40-7.41, P=0.006], significant effective rate (OR =3.61, 95% CI: 1.94-6.74, P<0.001), shorter treatment time [mean difference (MD) =-72.81 days, 95% CI: -106.55 to -39.08, P<0.001] and lower incidence of adverse reaction (OR =0.55, 95% CI: 0.33-0.94, P=0.03). Furthermore, the cure rate of patients in the PRO + LAU group was significantly higher than that of patients in the LAU group (OR =3.69, 95% CI: 1.05-12.93, P=0.04) and the incidence of adverse reaction did not differ significantly between the two groups (P=0.40). Conclusions: Oral PRO combined with intralesional injection of LAU appears to improve certain efficacy outcomes and may shorten treatment duration compared with monotherapy, with no clear increase in adverse reactions. However, the overall certainty of evidence is limited.
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.