MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399134566 · doi:10.1177/12034754241256346

Intralesional 5-Fluorouracil for Keloids: A Systematic Review

2024· review· en· W4399134566 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aliyah King, Marina Guirguis, Seyyon Satkunanathan, Mysa Saad, Reetesh Bose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDermatologic Treatments and Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFluorouracilKeloidErythemaTriamcinolone acetonideDermatologySurgeryInternal medicineOncologyChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keloids are benign, fibroproliferative dermal tumours, often arising after trauma, that are more common in darker skin types. Numerous therapeutic options have been employed for the treatment of keloids; however, there is no one gold standard approach. Five-fluorouracil, a potent chemotherapeutic agent, has emerged as a promising therapeutic option. Therefore, this systematic review, using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, focused on providing a broad overview of the use of 5-fluorouracil for the management of keloids. Forty studies (2325 patients) met inclusion criteria and investigated 5-fluorouracil for keloid management, with 19 studies (1043 patients) including a 5-fluorouracil monotherapy group. Five-fluorouracil monotherapy demonstrated consistent keloid improvement with >254 keloids injected across various anatomical regions. Five-fluorouracil monotherapy was most often compared to intralesional triamcinolone acetonide, utilizing the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale and the Vancouver Scar Scale. The most common keloid parameters assessed were height, size, volume, width, length, induration, pruritus, and erythema. Five-fluorouracil monotherapy exhibited substantial improvements, with weight averages of 73% of patients experiencing >25% improvement and 67% achieving >50% improvement. Relapse rate was 16% at 27 weeks after 5-fluorouracil monotherapy treatment. Limitations included potential selection bias, language restrictions, and heterogenous data analysis among studies. Overall, our findings underscore the potential effectiveness of 5-fluorouracil monotherapy in the management of keloids, with an encouraging safety profile. Larger prospective trials are needed to determine optimal therapy or combination therapy for the management of keloids. This detailed compilation of treatment protocols, outcomes, and relapse rates stand as a valuable resource for further research and clinical applications.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.009
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.128
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.298 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and SurgerySame topicDermatologic Treatments and ResearchFrench-language works237,207