Topical treatments for cutaneous warts
Background Viral warts are a common skin condition, which can range in severity from a minor nuisance that resolve spontaneously to a troublesome, chronic condition. Many different topical treatments are available. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy of local treatments for cutaneous non‐genital war...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2012-09, Vol.2020 (12), p.CD001781 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Viral warts are a common skin condition, which can range in severity from a minor nuisance that resolve spontaneously to a troublesome, chronic condition. Many different topical treatments are available.
Objectives
To evaluate the efficacy of local treatments for cutaneous non‐genital warts in healthy, immunocompetent adults and children.
Search methods
We updated our searches of the following databases to May 2011: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (from 2005), EMBASE (from 2010), AMED (from 1985), LILACS (from 1982), and CINAHL (from 1981). We searched reference lists of articles and online trials registries for ongoing trials.
Selection criteria
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of topical treatments for cutaneous non‐genital warts.
Data collection and analysis
Two authors independently selected trials and extracted data; a third author resolved any disagreements.
Main results
We included 85 trials involving a total of 8815 randomised participants (26 new studies were included in this update). There was a wide range of different treatments and a variety of trial designs. Many of the studies were judged to be at high risk of bias in one or more areas of trial design.
Trials of salicylic acid (SA) versus placebo showed that the former significantly increased the chance of clearance of warts at all sites (RR (risk ratio) 1.56, 95% CI (confidence interval) 1.20 to 2.03). Subgroup analysis for different sites, hands (RR 2.67, 95% CI 1.43 to 5.01) and feet (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.55), suggested it might be more effective for hands than feet.
A meta‐analysis of cryotherapy versus placebo for warts at all sites favoured neither intervention nor control (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.65 to 3.23). Subgroup analysis for different sites, hands (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 15.94) and feet (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.07), again suggested better outcomes for hands than feet. One trial showed cryotherapy to be better than both placebo and SA, but only for hand warts.
There was no significant difference in cure rates between cryotherapy at 2‐, 3‐, and 4‐weekly intervals.
Aggressive cryotherapy appeared more effective than gentle cryotherapy (RR 1.90, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.15), but with increased adverse effects.
Meta‐analysis did not demonstrate a significant difference in effectiveness between cryotherapy and SA at all sites (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.71) or in subgroup analyses for hands and feet.
Two trials with 328 part |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1465-1858 1469-493X 1465-1858 1469-493X |
DOI: | 10.1002/14651858.CD001781.pub3 |