Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Imiquimod and 5-Fluorouracil for the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis: Critical Review and Meta-Analysis of Efficacy Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Actinic keratosis lesions occur frequently on sun-exposed skin of Caucasians. They become more prevalent with advancing age and are important in identifying the risk factor of those people possibly predisposed to invasive squamous cell carcinoma. Topical therapies are useful alternatives to cryotherapy for treating diffuse actinic damage and a number of preparations have been developed for treating actinic keratosis. Objectives: A cumulative meta-analysis was performed to determine the efficacy of imiquimod 5% cream, which presents a new alternative topical therapy for actinic keratosis, and to compare it to 5-fluorouracil for the treatment of actinic keratosis lesions of the face and scalp. Methods: We searched MEDLINE (1966 to October 2004) for relevant studies evaluating the efficacy of actinic keratosis topical agents imiquimod and 5-fluorouracil (0.5%, 1%, and 5%). Studies included in this meta-analysis required a dosage regimen that was not significantly different from that approved by Health Canada and the U.S. FDA. Studies also required a well-defined treatment duration and followup period, with the primary efficacy variable being the complete (100%) clearance of all actinic keratosis lesions defined as the proportion of patients at followup with no clinically visible lesions in the treatment area. To determine the average efficacy rate for both drugs, the data from each study were combined for that drug. Results: Ten studies were included in the analysis. The average efficacy rate for each drug (with 95% confidence interval) was 5-fluorouracil, 52 ± 18% ( n = 6 studies, 145 subjects) and imiquimod, 70 ± 12% ( n = 4 studies, 393 subjects). Conclusions: The results of this meta-analysis show that both imiquimod and 5-fluorouracil are effective methods for the treatment of actinic keratosis and provide a useful alternative to cryotherapy. However, this analysis suggests that imiquimod may have higher efficacy than 5-fluorouracil for actinic keratosis lesions located on the face and scalp and therefore provides another option to dermatologists.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.032 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".