Efficacy of non-surgical monotherapies for hidradenitis suppurativa: a systematic review and network meta-analyses of randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective We determined the relative efficacy of non-surgical monotherapies for hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).Methods Network meta-analyses were conducted to determine treatments’ surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) value (i.e. an estimate that ranks efficacy); pairwise comparisons were conducted.Results and conclusions Ten trials were eligible for quantitative analyses; however, all did not have a common endpoint. Outcomes corresponded to pain severity, clinical response, quality of life and abscess count. For pain reduction, infliximab was ranked most efficacious (SUCRA = 94%) compared to bermekimab, anakinra and placebo; infliximab reduced pain more significantly (p < .05) than anakinra and then placebo. For the occurrence of clinical response, bimekizumab had the highest SUCRA (67%) relative to adalimumab, anakinra and placebo; bimekizumab was more efficacious than placebo (p < .05). For the quality of life in mild HS, Botox had the highest SUCRA (94%) compared to adalimumab and placebo; Botox was more efficacious than placebo (p < .05). For reduction in abscess count, oral tetracycline had the highest SUCRA (48%) compared to topical clindamycin and vehicle. Our work—being the first NMA study on non-surgical HS monotherapies—contributes to the comparative effectiveness literature for this condition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.061 | 0.016 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".