Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

21 questions · 21 findings · 3 reviews · Skin

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 11 · 52.4%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 2 · 9.5%Low 5 · 23.8%Moderate 3 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%

Closest answers

The findings closest to your search, judged one by one by TypeSafe's Jev model.

Direct match · question page
- Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention · Reduction in number of flares
  Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found
Direct match · question page
- Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention · Eating a normally varied diet
  Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found
Direct match · question page
- Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention · Allergic sensitisation to a food allergen (at 1 to 3 years)
  Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 1.05 [0.64, 1.71]
  3 studies · 1794 participants
  Low
Direct match
- Any topical or systemic intervention vs Placebo, no treatment, or another intervention
  Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the included studies assessed the effectiveness of treatments of genital ELP; no evidence was found for genital ELP.
  0 studies
  No studies found
Direct match · question page
- Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention · IgE‐mediated food allergy (oral food challenge) by 1 to 3 years
  Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  RR 2.53 [0.99, 6.49]
  1 study · 976 participants
  Low

Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention

Eczema diagnosis by 1 to 3 years · infants

Skin care intervention showed no clear difference in eczema diagnosis by 1 to 3 years compared with standard skin care or no skin care intervention (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.03 [0.81, 1.31]
7 studies · 3075 participants
Moderate

Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention

IgE‐mediated food allergy (oral food challenge) by 1 to 3 years · infants

Skin care intervention showed no clear difference in igE‐mediated food allergy (oral food challenge) by 1 to 3 years compared with standard skin care or no skin care intervention (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.53 [0.99, 6.49]
1 study · 976 participants
Low

Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention

Slippages (over the intervention period) · infants

Skin care intervention showed no clear difference in slippages (over the intervention period) compared with standard skin care or no skin care intervention (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.42 [0.67, 2.99]
4 studies · 2538 participants
Low

Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention

Skin infection (over the intervention period) · infants

Skin care intervention probably leads to higher skin infection (over the intervention period) compared with standard skin care or no skin care intervention (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.33 [1.01, 1.75]
6 studies · 2728 participants
Moderate

Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention

Stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (over the intervention period) · infants

Skin care intervention showed no clear difference in stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (over the intervention… compared with standard skin care or no skin care intervention (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 2.24 [0.67, 7.43]
4 studies · 343 participants
Low

Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention

Time to onset of eczema · infants

Skin care intervention showed no clear difference in time to onset of eczema compared with standard skin care or no skin care intervention (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
HR 0.86 [0.65, 1.14]
9 studies · 3349 participants
Moderate

Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention

Parent report of immediate reaction to common food allergen (at 2 years) · infants

Skin care intervention showed no clear difference in parent report of immediate reaction to common food allergen (at 2… compared with standard skin care or no skin care intervention (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.27 [1, 1.61]
1 study · 1171 participants
Low

Skin care intervention vs standard skin care or no skin care intervention

Allergic sensitisation to a food allergen (at 1 to 3 years) · infants

Skin care intervention showed no clear difference in allergic sensitisation to a food allergen (at 1 to 3 years) compared with standard skin care or no skin care intervention (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Skin care interventions in infants for preventing eczema and food allergy 2022 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.05 [0.64, 1.71]
3 studies · 1794 participants
Low

Any topical or systemic intervention vs Placebo, no treatment, or another intervention

Outcome not reported · People with erosive anogenital (genital) lichen planus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
None of the included studies assessed the effectiveness of treatments of genital ELP; no evidence was found for genital ELP.
0 studies
No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention vs Placebo, no treatment, or another intervention

Outcome not reported · People with erosive oesophageal lichen planus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
None of the studies involved oesophageal disease; hence, no evidence was found for the treatment of oesophageal ELP.
0 studies
No studies found

Etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention vs placebo with PUVA therapy

Proportion of participants cleared or almost cleared ‐ · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

It is very uncertain whether etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention changes proportion of participants cleared or almost cleared in the short… compared with placebo with PUVA therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 1.91 [1.04, 3.5]
1 study · 20 participants
Very low

Etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention vs placebo with PUVA therapy

Proportion of participants with adverse effects serious or severe enough to have caused withdrawal ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention vs placebo with PUVA therapy

Proportion of participants with at least 50% improvement in their quality of life ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention vs placebo with PUVA therapy

Proportion of participants achieving a 50% reduction in disease severity ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention vs placebo with PUVA therapy

Proportion of participants without relapse in the long term ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention vs placebo with PUVA therapy

Proportion of participants with adverse effects ‐ measured over 8 weeks · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

It is very uncertain whether etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention changes proportion of participants with adverse effects ‐ measured over 20… compared with placebo with PUVA therapy (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
RR 17 [1.11, 259.87]
1 study · 20 participants
Very low

Etretinate with PUVA therapy as co‐intervention vs placebo with PUVA therapy

Ease of compliance to an intervention or a treatment ‐ not reported · chronic palmoplantar pustulosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for chronic palmoplantar pustulosis 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Eating a normally varied diet · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported this outcome.
0 studies
No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Restoration of sexual activity · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
None of the included studies assessed the effectiveness of treatments of genital ELP; thus, this outcome was not reported.
0 studies
No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Reduction in number of flares · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported this outcome.
0 studies
No studies found