↓ Skip to main content

Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
29 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
2 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Topical treatments for scalp psoriasis
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, February 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009687.pub2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Justin Gabriel Schlager, Stefanie Rosumeck, Ricardo Niklas Werner, Anja Jacobs, Jochen Schmitt, Christoph Schlager, Alexander Nast

Abstract

People with chronic plaque psoriasis often have lesions on the scalp. Hair makes the scalp difficult to treat and the adjacent facial skin is particularly sensitive to topical treatments. To assess the efficacy and safety of topical treatments for scalp psoriasis. We searched the following databases up to August 2015: the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL (2015, Issue 7), MEDLINE (from 1946), EMBASE (from 1974) and LILACS (from 1982). We also searched five trials registers, screened abstracts of six psoriasis-specific conferences and checked the reference lists of included studies for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a parallel-group, cross-over or within-patient design of topical treatments for people of all ages with scalp psoriasis. Two authors independently carried out study selection, data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment. Disagreements were settled by reference to a third author.To assess the quality of evidence, we focused on the following outcomes: 'clearance' or 'response' as assessed by the investigator global assessment (IGA), improvement in quality of life, adverse events requiring withdrawal of treatment and 'response' as assessed by the patient global assessment (PGA).We expressed the results of the single studies as risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MD) with 95% CI for continuous outcomes. If studies were sufficiently homogeneous, we meta-analysed the data by using the random-effects model. Where it was not possible to calculate a point estimate for a single study, we described the data qualitatively. We also presented the number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB).We categorised topical corticosteroids according to the German classification of corticosteroid potency as mild, moderate, high and very high. We included 59 RCTs with a total of 11,561 participants. Thirty studies were either conducted or sponsored by the manufacturer of the study medication. The risk of bias varied considerably among the included studies. For instance, most authors did not state the randomisation method and few addressed allocation concealment. Most findings were limited to short-term treatments, since most studies were conducted for less than six months. Only one trial investigated long-term therapy (12 months). Although we found a wide variety of different interventions, we limited the grading of the quality of evidence to three major comparisons: steroid versus vitamin D, two-compound combination of steroid and vitamin D versus steroid monotherapy and versus vitamin D.In terms of clearance, as assessed by the IGA, steroids were better than vitamin D (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.18; four studies, 2180 participants, NNTB = 8; 95% CI 7 to 11; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was superior to steroid monotherapy, however the additional benefit was small (RR 1.22; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.36; four studies, 2474 participants, NNTB = 17; 95% CI 11 to 41; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.28; 95% CI 1.87 to 2.78; four studies, 2008 participants, NNTB = 6; 95% CI 5 to 7; high quality evidence).In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the IGA, corticosteroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 2.09; 95% CI 1.80 to 2.41; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 4 to 5; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, but the additional benefit was small (RR 1.15; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.25; three studies, 2444 participants, NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 24; moderate quality evidence). It was also more effective than vitamin D alone (RR 2.31; 95% CI 1.75 to 3.04; four studies, 2222 participants, NNTB = 3; 95% CI 3 to 4; moderate quality evidence).Reporting of quality of life data was poor and data were insufficient to be included for meta-analysis.Steroids caused fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.22; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.42; four studies, 2291 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination and steroid monotherapy did not differ in the number of adverse events leading withdrawal (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.42 to 1.88; three studies, 2433 participants; moderate quality evidence). The two-compound combination led to fewer withdrawals due to adverse events than vitamin D (RR 0.19; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.36; three studies, 1970 participants; high quality evidence). No study reported the type of adverse event requiring withdrawal.In terms of treatment response, as assessed by the PGA, steroids were more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.28 to 1.72; three studies, 1827 participants; NNTB = 5; 95% CI 5 to 7; moderate quality evidence). Statistically, the two-compound combination was better than steroid monotherapy, however the benefit was not clinically important (RR 1.13; 95% CI 1.06 to 1.20; two studies, 2226 participants; NNTB = 13; 95% CI 9 to 26; high quality evidence). The two-compound combination was more effective than vitamin D (RR 1.76; 95% CI 1.46 to 2.12; four studies, 2222 participants; NNTB = 4; 95% CI 3 to 6; moderate quality evidence).Common adverse events with these three interventions were local irritation, skin pain and folliculitis. Systemic adverse events were rare and probably not drug-related.In addition to the results of the major three comparisons we found that the two-compound combination, steroids and vitamin D monotherapy were more effective than the vehicle. Steroids of moderate, high and very high potency tended to be similarly effective and well tolerated. There are inherent limitations in this review concerning the evaluation of salicylic acid, tar, dithranol or other topical treatments. The two-compound combination as well as corticosteroid monotherapy were more effective and safer than vitamin D monotherapy. Given the similar safety profile and only slim benefit of the two-compound combination over the steroid alone, monotherapy with generic topical steroids may be fully acceptable for short-term therapy.Future RCTs should investigate how specific therapies improve the participants' quality of life. Long-term assessments are needed (i.e. 6 to 12 months).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 2 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 2 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 1 50%
Unknown 1 50%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 52. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 June 2018.
All research outputs
#315,100
of 13,073,426 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#882
of 10,457 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,953
of 267,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#24
of 188 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,073,426 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,457 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 267,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 188 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.