Cochrane · systematic review · CD005027
Interventions for morphea
Albuquerque, JVD, Andriolo, BNG, Vasconcellos, MRA, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2019 · Cochrane Library
SkinAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
16
current version
GRADE rated
12
No studies
3
Included studies
NR
No studies 3 · 18.8%Ungraded 1 · 6.3%Very low 1 · 6.3%Low 11 · 68.8%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Oral methotrexate and oral prednisone compared to placebo and oral prednisone for juvenile morphea
Population: children and adolescents with active morphea (linear scleroderma, generalised morphea and mixed subtype: linear and circumscribed).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary outcome: Global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants Oral methotrexate and oral prednisone vs placebo and oral prednisone | RR 2.31 [1.2, 4.45] | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Primary outcome: Adverse effects Oral methotrexate and oral prednisone vs placebo and oral prednisone | RR 1.23 [0.75, 2.04] | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary outcome: Improvement of disease activity (reduction in lesion size) Oral methotrexate and oral prednisone vs placebo and oral prednisone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary outcome: Improvement of disease damage Oral methotrexate and oral prednisone vs placebo and oral prednisone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 70 participants | Ungraded |
Medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) compared to low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) for morphea
Population: children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma (with trunk/limb variant and head variant), generalised morphea, or mixed morphea).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary outcome: Global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants Medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) vs low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 44 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Primary outcome: Adverse effects Medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) vs low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) | RR 1 [0.91, 1.1] | 1 study · 44 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary outcome: Improvement of disease activity (skin softening) Medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) vs low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 36 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary outcome: Improvement of disease damage ‒ not measured Medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) vs low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Narrowband UVB phototherapy compared to medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) for morphea
Population: children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma (with trunk/limb variant and head variant), generalised morphea, or mixed morphea).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary outcome: Global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants Narrowband UVB phototherapy vs medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 35 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Primary outcome: Adverse effects Narrowband UVB phototherapy vs medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) | RR 0.03 [0, 0.42] | 1 study · 35 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary outcome: Improvement of disease activity (skin softening) Narrowband UVB phototherapy vs medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary outcome: Improvement of disease damage ‐ not measured Narrowband UVB phototherapy vs medium‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (50 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Narrowband UVB phototherapy compared to low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) for morphea
Population: children and adults with active morphea (circumscribed morphea, linear scleroderma (with trunk/limb variant and head variant), generalised morphea, or mixed morphea).
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Primary outcome: Global improvement of disease activity or damage assessed by a medical practitioner or by participants Narrowband UVB phototherapy vs low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 45 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Primary outcome: Adverse effects Narrowband UVB phototherapy vs low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) | RR 0.03 [0, 0.41] | 1 study · 45 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary outcome: Improvement of disease activity (skin softening) Narrowband UVB phototherapy vs low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 32 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Secondary outcome: Improvement of disease damage ‐ not measured Narrowband UVB phototherapy vs low‐dose UVA‐1 phototherapy (20 J/cm²) | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |