Abstract

Jia and He aimed 'to compare the efficacy and safety of imiquimod with other treatments in patients with basal cell carcinoma' (BCC). Meta-analysis of studies that included patients with histologically confirmed BCC treated with imiquimod 5% cream compared with all other treatments, including vehicle, excisional surgery, cryosurgery, fluorouracil and methyl aminolaevulinate photodynamic therapy. The main outcome measures included histological and composite clearance rates, success rates, complete response rates, tumour-free survival and adverse events. Thirteen studies with a total of 4265 patients were included in the review. Pooled analyses comparing imiquimod with all or any of the listed comparators, including vehicle, demonstrated higher histological clearance rates [risk ratio (RR) 9·28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5·56-15·5; P < 0·001], higher composite clearance rates (RR 34·2, 95% CI 21·3, 55·1; P = 0·001), no significant difference in success rates (RR 0·98, 95% CI 0·89-1·08; P = 0·73), higher complete response rates (RR 3·15, 95% CI 1·55-6·38; P = 0·001), no significant difference in tumour-free survival (RR 1·15, 95% CI 0·98-1·35; P = 0·088) and increased incidence of adverse events (RR 2·00, 95% CI 1·39-2·88; P < 0·001). The authors state that 'imiquimod significantly exhibited benefit effect in improving the histological/composite clearance rates' compared with other treatments, and they suggest it could be used as the first-choice treatment for patients with BCC. The main concerns related to the article by Jia and He are that the research question is replicative, it makes little sense to combine all BCC types in a meta-analysis, and it also makes no sense to combine an active treatment against a combination of vehicle and other active treatments. There are also concerns about bias related to the use of the same study data more than once in a meta-analysis. Furthermore, we have identified an example of covert duplicate publication, which further compounds the profusion of misleading systematic reviews.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.