Topičko liječenje kronične psorijaze s plakovima
Referencias
References to studies included in this review
References to studies excluded from this review
References to studies awaiting assessment
References to ongoing studies
Additional references
References to other published versions of this review
Characteristics of studies
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
| Methods | DESIGN Within‐patient | |
| Participants | N: 11 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 60 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 18 wks LF: 5 (8.3%) BC: Yes Age: 48.5 (15.4SD); range = 19 to 77 Gender (per cent men): 56.7% Severity: mPASI = 7.09 (3.14SD); PGA = 3.05 Duration (yrs): 16.5 (13.0SD); range = 1 to 62 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | NeoStrata company, Inc. sponsored the trial. There was significant improvement in DLQI scores relative to baseline in both groups. Compliance: 96% of participants in both groups reported they applied the study medication twice daily on most days. Recurrence rates (loss of PASI50 response): C: 7/9; T: 4/16 Recurrence rates (PGA): C: 14/20; T: 5/22 The trial author supplied unpublished data. There was SD imputation (TSS). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated list was used for randomisation. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 8.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | The trial reported demographic and clinical characteristics. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 49 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: 3 (6.1%) BC: yes Age: 42.4 (13.9SD; range = 18 to 68) Gender (per cent men): 63% Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 6.4 (0.5SD; range = 6.0 to 8.0) Duration: 15.6 (12.3SD; range = 1 to 57) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Glaxo Wellcome Research and Development, Norway, sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | High risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 6.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 132 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 2 (1.5%) BC: yes Age: 46.8 (15.2SD; range = 18 to 89) Gender (per cent men): 67.4% Severity: PASI = 4.4 (2.1SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report on sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Block randomisation was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 30 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 4 (13.3%) BC: demographics similar; clinical characteristics not reported Age: 47.2 (14.5SD, N = 144) (range = 20 to 75) Gender (per cent men): 59.7% (86/144) Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions | Dose‐ranging study including placebo; calcipotriol 50 mcg/g; maxacalcitol 6, 12.5, 25, and 50 mcg/g OD. Contrast included the following:
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Non‐target plaques received emollient or coal tar throughout. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 13.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially reported (demographics only). |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 60 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 6 (10.0%) BC: demographics similar; clinical characteristics not reported Age: 47.2 (14.5SD, N = 144) (range = 20 to 75) Gender (per cent men): 59.7% (86/144) Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions | Dose‐ranging study including placebo; calcipotriol 50 mcg/g; maxacalcitol ointment 6, 12.5, 25, and 50 mcg/g OD. Contrast included the following:
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Non‐target plaques received emollient or coal tar throughout the study. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially reported (demographics only). |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | These were partially done. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 420 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: unclear BC: not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
At visit 1, all participants were treated with calcipotriol scalp solution twice daily. Participants were randomly assigned to treatment with either twice‐weekly Polytar® liquid or a non‐medicated shampoo twice weekly. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished outcomes data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open (impossible to blind participants when tar‐based products are used). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 100 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 2 wks LF: 4 (4%) BC: yes Age: 49 (range = 20 to 77) Gender (per cent men): 61.5% Severity: at least 2 signs or symptoms ≥ 2 on a 4‐pt scale Duration (yrs): 18.2 (range = 1 to 53) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Westwood‐Squibb Pharmaceuticals (BMS) sponsored the trial with an educational grant. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 72 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 2 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes (demographics); clinical comparability unclear Age: 53 (range = 23 to 86) Gender (per cent men): 52.8% Severity: signs > = 4 on a 7‐pt scale; BSA = 1% to 20% Duration: 22.7 (range = 1 to 62) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Westwood‐Squibb Pharmaceuticals (BMS) sponsored the trial with an educational grant. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 200 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 29 (14.5%) BC: yes Age: 48.3 (13.9SD) Gender (per cent men): 46.5% Severity: PASI (0 to 12) = 6.89 (2.8SD); QLI (0 to 120) = 58.74 (31.5SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Apollo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. 'PASI' is similar to TSS (range = 0 to 12) as it examines small BSA. However, the PASI score was also adjusted by area. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 14.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | The trial reported this. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 478 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: for PASI: 56 (11.7%); for Response: 20 (4.2%) BC: yes Age: 44 (range = 18 to 85) Gender (per cent men): 55% Severity: PASI = 9.3 Duration (yrs): 18 (12SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Denmark, sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated block list was used for randomisation. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 11.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 27 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 2 (7.4%) BC: yes Age: 51.6 (12.8SD); range = 21 to 75 Gender (per cent men): 67% Ethnicity (% white): 85% Severity: overall target severity score (0 to 4) = 2.67 (0.58SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Laboratories, L.P. sponsored the study. There was SD imputation (TSS). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 19 (evaluable) Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: NR BC: yes (clinical only) Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TSS = 7.9 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Participants were randomised into groups A (calcipotriol BD) and B (occlusion ON), then each participant was randomised to left/right application: group A (occlusion ON/no occlusion); group B (calcipotriol BD or placebo BD). The study reported findings for group A. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Envelopes were used. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 24 Treatment duration: 8 wks LF: 4 (16.7%) BC: yes (clinical only reported) Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): 41.7% Severity: PASI mean = 14.0 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Solvay‐Duphar Ltd sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 16.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 30 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 6 (20%) BC: unclear Age: 55 (12.6SD); range = 20 to 75 Gender (per cent men): 50% Ethnicity (% white): 46.7% Severity: TSS (0 to 16) mean = 6.97 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Hawaii Community Foundation sponsored the study. The trial author supplied unpublished data. There was SD imputation (TSS). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | 20% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN WITHDRAWAL/DROPOUT | |
| Participants | N: 114 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 15 (13.2%) BC: yes Age: 44.1 (14.6SD; range = 20 to 77) Gender (per cent men): 60.2% Severity: mean duration of current episode (days) = 142 (range = 0 to 601) Overall severity score (mean): 4.5 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Westwood Squibb Pharmaceuticals Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 13.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 10 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 2 (20%) BC: not reported Age: 21.4 (range = 9 to 41) Gender (per cent men): 50% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 20.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 218 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: 5 (2.3%) BC: yes Age: 48.4 (15.48SD) Gender (per cent men): 45.0% Ethnicity: 97.7% Severity: TSS (0 to 12) = 6.80 (1.58SD) Duration (yrs): 14.6 (13.87SD); range = 0 to 65 Extent of scalp psoriasis: 3.39 (1.36SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants achieving absence of disease (IGA = 5) at weeks 2 to 5 could withdraw from the study. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the study. Treatment duration (wks): C‐B: 6.1 (2.4 SD), N = 108; B: 6.8 (2.2 SD), N = 110 Compliance (missed < = 20% applications): C‐B: 93/108; B: 103/110 The sponsor supplied unpublished data., | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 258 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 14 wks LF: 15 (5.8%) BC: yes Age: 43.5 (14.3SD: range = 15 to 83) Gender (per cent men): 64.3% Severity: per cent BSA = 25.5 (22.9SD: range = 1 to 95); PASI = 15.4 (10.6SD) Duration of psoriasis (mths) mean: 199.2 (157.5SD: range = 1 to 745) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | There was a 1‐wk run‐in period without treatment, except tar shampoo and emollients. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 5.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 24 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 5 (20.8 %) BC: yes Age (mean): 47 Gender (per cent men): 54.2% Severity: PASI mean = 26 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Finders Dead Sea Salt Co and Dead Sea Salt works supplied the study treatments. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | 20.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 171 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 16 wks (N = 95) LF: 5 (2.9%) BC: yes Age: 47.4 (range = 17 to 88) Gender (per cent men): 62.6% Severity: mean TSS (0 to 9) = 6.24; mean duration of psoriasis = 18.5 (range = 1 to 58) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The study did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.9% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 81 Severity: GSS = 3 (moderate) (67.9%); GSS = 4 (severe) (32.1%) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Max usage/wk: 50 g Participants achieving GSS = 0 at 2 wks completed ("withdrew" from) the study. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Laboratories, LP, sponsored the trial. Galderma supplied safety data for this study. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were made. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | The trial demonstrated demographic and clinical comparability. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 160 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: 8 (5%) BC: yes Age: 49.9 (14.2SD) Gender (per cent men): 68.1% Severity: mean PASI = 7.6 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 5.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 409 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 8 (2.0%) BC: yes Age: 44.9 (range = 17 to 83) Gender (per cent men): 55.7% Severity: mean PASI = 9.0 (range = 0.6 to 41.2); mean duration psoriasis = 16.2 (range = 0.2 to 57) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated block list was used for randomisation. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 30 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: not reported Age: range = 18 to 84 Gender (per cent men): 70.0% Severity: PASI range = 2.7 to 24.3 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 222 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 48.4 (15.0SD) Gender (per cent men): 55.9% Ethnicity (% white): 100% Severity: DSS (0 to 12) = 8.44 (1.45SD); atrophy (0 to 3) = 1.01; telangiectasia (0 to 3) = 0.01 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants were randomised to clobetasol propionate cream or lotion; results were aggregated for review purposes. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma R&D, Sophia Antipolis, France, sponsored the trial. There was SD imputation (TSS). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator); as the cream and lotion were compared, it was not possible to blind participants. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1106 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 86 (7.8%) BC: yes Age: mean = 47.1 (range = 18 to 89) Gender (per cent men): 59.8% Severity: PASI = 10.7 (range = 2.1 to 39.6) Duration: mean = 18.4 (range = 0 to 65) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
All groups then received 4 weeks of maintenance therapy with calcipotriol BD. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 66 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 6 (9.1%) BC: yes Age: 43 (range = 21 to 84) Gender (per cent men): 69.7% Severity: PASI mean = 14.15 Duration: 13.3 (range = 0.3 to 40.0) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. There was the SD imputation (TSS). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 9.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 15 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 20 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 49 (range = 27 to 76) Gender (per cent men): 80% Severity: TSS (0 to 24) = 13.7 (14.7SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | National Institutes of Health and by Penederm Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 11
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial was sponsored in part by grant from the National Institutes for Health. US Abbott Laboratories supplied the study drug. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 42 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: unclear LF: 0 (0%) BC: clinical only Age: 33.5 (range = 6 to 61) Gender (per cent men): 69% Severity: TSS (0 to 12) = 5.2 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 40 (55% psoriasis) Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: not reported BC: yes Age: 36.5 (range = 20 to 63) Gender (per cent men): 40% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Schering Canada Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 165 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 33 (20%) BC: yes Age: 49.1 (range = 19 to 82) Gender (per cent men): 51.6% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 20.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 25 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 40.3 (14.1SD); range = 18 to 66 Gender (per cent men): 56.0% Severity: mean TSS (0 to 12) = 7.83 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 84 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 45.1 (range = 18 to 69) Gender (per cent men): 60.7% Severity: mean PASI = 13.2%; BSA (mean) = 16.5% INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
Serious co‐morbidity | |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Hermal sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated block list was used for randomisation. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 323 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | STUDY 1: nCT00689481 Stiefel Laboratories, a GSK Company, sponsored the trial. Atrophy was not reported. We sought data, but they were not received. No usable effectiveness data were reported or available from sponsor. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 336 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | STUDY 2: nCT00688519 Stiefel Laboratories, a GSK Company, sponsored the trial. Atrophy was not reported. We sought data, but they were not received. No usable effectiveness data were reported or available from sponsor. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 364 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: 2 (0.5%) BC: yes Age: 51.1 (14.7SD) Gender (per cent men): 58.8% Per cent white: 98.1% Severity: PASI (0 to 64.8) = 7.8 (4.4SD), range = 1 to 25; IGA = 2.97 (0.66SD), range = mild (2) to very severe (5) Duration (yrs): 18.9 (13.8SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Concomitant use of corticosteroids (WHO group I or II), dithranol, tar, and retinoids on face, scalp, and flexures was permitted. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the trial. Compliance: mean weekly us =: C‐B: 22.7 g; C: 22.4g; B: 25.9 g Safety data were available for 362/364 participants. Leo Pharmaceuticals supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation schedule was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 364 Duration (yrs): 18.9 (13.8SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Concomitant use of corticosteroids (WHO group I or II), dithranol, tar, and retinoids on face, scalp, and flexures were permitted. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the trial. Compliance: mean weekly us =: C‐B: 22.7 g; C: 22.4g; B: 25.9 g; P: 26.1 g Safety data were available for 362/364 participants. Leo Pharmaceuticals supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation schedule was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 190 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 18 (9.5%) BC: yes Age: 49.6 Gender (per cent men): 49.3% Severity: mean TSS (0 to 12) = 7.92 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Findings reported for foam and lotion combined:
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Connectics Corporation sponsored by the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 9.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 188 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: unclear Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): 49.5% Severity: mean TSS (0 to 12) = 7.25 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Findings reported for foam and lotion combined:
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Connectics Corporation sponsored by the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 7 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 36 to 67 Gender (per cent men): 100% Severity: TSS (0 to 8) = 6.72 (0.76SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 279 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 8 (2.9%) BC: yes (clinical only) Age: 47 (range = 19 to 82) Gender (per cent men): 57% Severity: BSA = 6.7% INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Limit of 50 g of medication/wk to non‐scalp sites only | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Connetics Corporation sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 25 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 16 weeks LF: not reported BC: yes Age: 44.0 (range = 20 to 72) Gender (per cent men): 52.0%) Severity: BSA = 16.1% (range = 4.1% to 47.8%); TSS (target sites) = 6.3 (range = NR) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | There was inpatient treatment to ensure high level of compliance. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 12 Treatment duration: 4 wks: FU: 16 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 50.3 (range = 33 to 75) Gender (per cent men): 33% (4/12) Severity: BSA 17.1% (range = 4.7% to 45.7%); TSS = 6.3 (range = 5 to 7) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | There was inpatient treatment to ensure high level of compliance. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 49 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 3 (6.1%) BC: unclear Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: mean TSS (0 to 12) = 6.7 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 6.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 80 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 9 (11.3%) BC: unclear Age: 51.5 (range = 20 to 77) Gender (per cent men): 43.8% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship, but 3 of the authors were employed by Owen/Galderma laboratories. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 11.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 57 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 6 (10.5%) BC: yes Age: 47.8 (range = 21 to 88) Gender (per cent men): 50.9% Severity: PGA, per cent moderate = 72%; PGA, per cent severe = 29.8%; TSS = 5.34 (range = 3.0 to 9.0) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Novartis Pharmaceuticals Group sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Novartis supplied identical tubes identified only by randomisation number (participants and investigators blinded to tube contents). |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was by a validated system that automated the random assignment of treatment codes. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 120 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 20 wks LF: 14 (11.7%) BC: yes Age: 48.5 Gender (per cent men): 60.8% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
12 weeks' maintenance for both groups with emollient only. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Allergan Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 11.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 828 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 10 (1.2%) BC: yes Age: 48.5 (14.3SD) Gender (per cent men): 64.0% Severity: mean PASI = 10.5; mean duration psoriasis = 18.3 yrs INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | All study personnel and participants were blinded to treatment assignment for the duration of the study. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 828 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | All study personnel and participants were blinded to treatment assignment for the duration of the study. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 208 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 9 (4.3%) BC: yes Age: 40.4 (8.9SD) Gender (per cent men): 59.8% Severity: TSS (0 to 20) = 16.1 (11.0SD) Duration (yrs): 9.4 (8.9SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. Translation support was received for data extraction. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 413 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 47 (11.4%) BC: yes, except average age in placebo group higher than for A and B (P = 0.02) Age: 44.6 Gender (per cent men): 52.8% Severity: PASI (modified) = 8.3 (range = 0.6 to 59.4) Duration (yrs): 17.7 (range = 0.04 to 70) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 11.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 185 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 3 (1.6%) BC: yes Age: 49.0 (range = 19 to 83) Gender (per cent men): 56.8% Severity: PGA = 3.2 (range = 3 to 4); PSS = 8.1 (range = 4.7 to 12) Ethnicity (per cent white): NR Duration: 17.3 (range = 0.5 to 65) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Max: 8 g ointment/day Participants were permitted concurrent oral vitamin D (= < 400 IU/day), oral calcium (< = 1200 mg/day), or both; or tar shampoo for scalp psoriasis. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | QuatRx Pharmaceuticals (product now owned by Deltanoid Pharmaceuticals) sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant and investigator/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.6% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated (clinical and demographic). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 73 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 21 (28.8%) BC: yes Age: 40.5 (median); range = 18 to 71 (N = 52) Gender (per cent men): 65.8% (N = 73) Severity: TSS (0 to 12) = 7.4 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | High risk | 28.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 277 Treatment duration: 8 wks LF: 30 (10.8%) BC: clinical severity comparable, demographics unclear Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TSS (0 to 8) = 3.90; BSA = 9.1% INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Bristol Myers Squibb sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 360 Treatment duration: 2 or 6 wks; FU: 6 or 10 wks LF: NR BC: not demonstrated Age: NR Gender (per cent men): NR Severity: NR INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
[Placebo ointment plus occlusion, once/week for 2 wks (P)] | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma, Ballerup, sponsored the trial. It was unclear how participants were blinded to treatment options where 2/3 involved occlusion. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was reported to be double‐blind (participant/investigator), but it was unclear how they blinded participants to treatment options where 2/3 involved occlusion. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was not demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 360
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma, Ballerup, sponsored the trial. It was unclear how participants were blinded to treatment options where 2/3 involved occlusion. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was reported to be double‐blind (participant/investigator), but it was unclear how they blinded participants to treatment options where 2/3 involved occlusion. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was not demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 15 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: not reported Age: 56 (range = 25 to 74) Gender (per cent men): 67 % Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The National Institutes for Health (Department of Health and Human Services) and the Department of Defense Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program sponsored the trial through grants. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 320 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: stated no significant difference in clinical or demographic characteristics (data not shown) Age: NR Gender (per cent men): NR Severity: NR INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participant gave written consent to use < = 100 g/wk. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. We received translation support from native speaker. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial authors state these were undertaken. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial authors state that groups were comparable at baseline (not demonstrated). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 114 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 28 (24.6%) BC: yes Age: 42.3 Gender (per cent men): 74.4% Severity: PASI (mean) = 11.8 Duration of psoriasis (mths) (mean): 185.1 (range = 1 to 85) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | 24.6% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 142 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 1 (0.7%) BC: yes Age: 45.1 (15.37SD) Gender (per cent men): 42.3% Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 6.6; GSS (6‐pt (rescaled: 0 = very severe to 5 = clear) = 1.65 (0.61SD), N = 142 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma R&D Inc sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | ‐ |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 120 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 48.0 (12.9SD) Gender (per cent men): 60.0% Severity: % BSA = 7.69% (6.17%SD); ODS (moderate) = 90.8%; ODS (severe/very severe) = 9.2% Ethnicity (per cent white): 94.2% Duration: NR INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Then 4‐week treatment‐free follow‐up period. There was 8 hrs between applications, and the treated area was unwashed for 4 hours after application. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. The trial also reported CIC data on a safety RCT (2 or 4 wks with clobetasol propionate 0.05% spray, < = 50 g/wk): 8/36 had HPA suppression; all returned to normal within 2 wks of end of treatment (EOT). The trialist supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | The trial reported these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 30 Treatment duration: 8 wks LF: 3 (10%) BC: not reported Age: 45.2 (14.0SD; N = 27) Gender (per cent men): 77.8%; N = 27 Severity: severity (mean score, 0 to 3) = 1.9; N = 27 Duration disease (years): 20.5 (14.8SD; N = 27) Duration exacerbation (mths): 5.1 (6.4SD; N = 27) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | E Merck AB sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1505 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 32 (2.1%) BC: yes Age: 49.0 (15.8SD); range = 17 to 97 Gender (per cent men): 44.8% Ethnicity (per cent white): 96.3% Severity: IGA mild disease = 6.5%; IGA moderate disease = 56.2%; IGA severe disease = 31.6%; IGA very severe disease = 5.7%; TSS (0 to 12) = 6.82 (1.85SD) Duration (yrs): 16.5 (13.6SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A preplanned computer‐generated randomisation code list was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1505 Duration (yrs): 16.5 (13.6SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A preplanned computer‐generated randomisation code list was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 250 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Usage restrictions:
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Laboratories LP sponsored the trial. The trial was set in China. We received translation support for data extraction. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 96 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 7 (7.3%) BC: yes Age: 35.8 (range = 18 to 65) Gender (per cent men): 57.3% Severity: TSS (0 to 20) = 9.4 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Biological Technical Medical Trade Limited sponsored the trial. We received translation support for data extraction. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 89 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: Unclear BC: yes Age: 49.7 (range = 21 to 84) Gender (per cent men): 65% Severity: per cent BSA affected = 8.1% Duration of psoriasis (range, years): 1 to 57 Duration of exacerbation (range, wks): 3 to 2080 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Glaxo Wellcome Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 379 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: NR BC: yes (only clinical comparability demonstrated) Age: NR Gender (per cent men): NR Severity: PASI = 7.9 (5.3SD); IGA moderate = 76.2%; IGA severe = 22.2% INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
< = 100 g/wk ‐ the daily dose was not specified. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Warner‐Chilcott sponsored the trial. This was a conference abstract only. We sought data but received no response. There was SD imputation (PASI). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial only reported clinical assessments (demographic characteristics not reported). |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated (demographic characteristics not assessed). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 30 Treatment duration: 6 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: psoriasis comparable, demographics unclear Age: 41 (range = 18 to 66) Gender (per cent men): 66.7% Severity: TSS (0 to 24) = 12.27 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Bristol‐Myers Squibb Corporation and from Babcock Dermatologic Endowment (University of Michigan) sponsored the trial through grants. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Participants were assigned by computer‐generated code. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 18 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: not reported Age: 45.4 (range = 21 to 66) Gender (per cent men): 55.6% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. Compliance was assessed by unused medication returned at each visit. The compliance rate for participants in each group was > 90%. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 40 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 2 (5%) BC: yes Age: 46.7 Gender (per cent men): 60% Severity: per cent participants with BSA affected < 10% = 68% Duration (years): 20.8 INCLUSION CRITERIA
Note: 38/59 (64%) achieved remission during the acute phase EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial was supported in part by a grant from Schering Plough Corporation. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 5.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 94 Treatment duration: 24 wks; FU: 24 wks LF: 4 (4.3%) BC: yes Age: 46.0 (range = 21 to 86) Gender (per cent men): 67.8% Severity: overall score not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
Note: 94/123 (76%) achieved remission during acute phase EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship, but the Schering Corporation employed the corresponding author. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 110 Treatment duration: 2 wks LF: 2 (1.8%) BC: inadequately reported Age: 51.7 (range = 19 to 84) Gender (per cent men): 80.6% Severity: Total Severity Score (0 to 12) (median) = 8 Duration of disease (years): 21 (range 1 to 57) Duration of exacerbation (years): 15.4 (range < 1 to 57) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial was supported by an educational grant from Westwood‐Squibb Pharmaceuticals, a Bristol‐Myers Squibb company. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1603 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 48.4 (range = 17 to 90) Gender (per cent men): 60.5% Severity: PASI mean = 10.0 (range = 1.2 to 49.5) Duration: 19.2 (range = 0 to 75) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1603 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 10 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 32.1 (range 20 to 52) Gender (per cent men): 60% Severity: PASI = 10.49 (1.60SD) Duration: 6.7 years (range 0.2 to 15) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (unclear who was blinded). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 239 Treatment duration: 8 wks LF: 29 (12.1%) BC: not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Bristol Myers Squibb Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 12.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 474 Treatment duration: 4 wks LF: assessment = 6 (1.3%) TSS: 29 (6.1%) BC: yes Age: 44.1 (range = 18 to 90) Gender (per cent men): 51.5% Severity: TSS (0 to 12) = 6.5 (range = 2 to 12) Duration of scalp psoriasis (yrs): 13.1 (range = 0.1 to 67.0) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | reported |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 475 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 24 wks (N = 166) LF: 52 (10.9%) BC: yes Age: 45.3 Gender (per cent men): 52.0% Severity: Total Severity Score (0 to 12) = 5.1 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.9% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 86 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 2 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: not demonstrated Age: NR Gender (per cent men): NR Severity: NR INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions | Part 1
Part 2
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Connetics Corporation, Palo Alto, California, US, sponsored the trial. We sought data, but we received no response. There was SD imputation (IGA/PGA). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was not demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 30 Treatment duration: 6 wks LF: 3 (10%) BC: yes Age: 39 (range = 18 to 65) Gender (per cent men): 30.0% Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 6.9; per cent BSA = 18.7% (range = 12% to 50%) Duration (yrs): 15.3 (range = 1 to 35) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 345 Treatment duration: 6 wks LF: 3 (0.9%) BC: yes Age: 45.2 (range = 18 to 90) Gender (per cent men): 58.8% Severity: PASI = 8.35 (range = 0.60 to 48.5) Duration (yrs): 19.5 (range = 0.5 to 76) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.9% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 699 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 8 (1.1%) BC: psoriasis comparable, demographics unclear Age: not stated Gender (per cent men): not stated Severity: not stated INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The study was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 972 Treatment duration: 8 wk; FU: 12 wks LF: 99 (10.2%) BC: yes Age: 47.7 (range = 18 to 97) Gender (per cent men): 63.8% Severity: PASI = 10.5 (range = 2 to 49); per cent with moderate disease = 64.3% Duration (yrs): 18.5 (range = 0 to 70) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | A centralised telephone voice response system was used for the participant assignment, and this removed the opportunity for investigator bias during randomisation. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | Groups A and B were double‐blind (participant/investigator); group C was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 634 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
< = 100 g/wk | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation schedule was used (1:1:1). |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial only reported mean values (no measure of spread). They described groups as "well balanced". |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 312 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 16 wks LF: 2 (0.6%) BC: yes Age: 51.0 (15.4SD); range = 18 to 91 Gender (per cent men): 43.0% Ethnicity (per cent white): 99.0% Severity: IGA moderate = 56.7%; IGA severe = 35.9%; IGA very severe = 7.4%; TSS (0 to 12) = 7.3 (1.7SD) Duration (yrs): 18.7 (14.6SD); range = 0 to 70 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
There was no concomitant topical treatment, emollient, or medicated shampoo or conditioner. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation schedule was used (1:2). |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.6% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 80 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: 2 (2.5%) BC: yes Age: 52.4 (14.3SD); range = 28 to 87 Gender (per cent men): 61.3% Ethnicity: NR Severity: mPASI = 21.2 (13.4SD); range = 3 to 54; VAS (0 to 10) = 4.8 (2.7SD); range = 1 to 10 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
No concomitant therapies were permitted (including emollients). | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Novartis Pharma GmbH sponsored the trial. Atrophy was not reported. We sought unpublished data, but it was reported to be unavailable. There was SD imputation (PASI). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Computer‐generated randomisation lists were used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 80 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
No concomitant therapies were permitted (including emollients). | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Novartis Pharma GmbH sponsored the trial. Atrophy was not reported. We sought unpublished data, but it was reported to be unavailable. There was SD imputation (PASI). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Computer‐generated randomisation lists were used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 45 Treatment duration: 6 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: reported to be similar Age: 50 (range = 23 to 83) Gender (per cent men): 84% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Allergan, Inc, California, sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | These were stated to be similar; comparability was not demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 43 Treatment duration: 10 days FU: 20 days LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: not stated Gender (per cent men): not stated Severity: not stated INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. This was a scalp trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial reported baseline comparability (demographic/clinical), but it was not demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 125 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 5 (4.0%) BC: yes Age: 49.5 (15.1SD) Gender (per cent men): 55.2% Ethnicity (per cent white/Caucasoid): 97.6% Severity: PASI = 6.8; per cent BSA = 13.2 (7.4SD) Duration (yrs): 16.7 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
In the initial phase, the participant applied dual therapy until achieving clearance or marked improvement or until 4 wks elapsed, then switched to monotherapy maintenance phase. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Laboratories sponsored the trial. We sought unpublished data, but it was reported to be unavailable. There was SD imputation (PASI). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 40 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: psoriasis comparable, demographics unclear Age: range = 17 to 84 Gender (per cent men): not stated Severity: PASI (mean) = 11.6 (range = 3.0 to 35.1) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 157 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 18 (11.5%) BC: yes Age: 39.6 Gender (per cent men): 52.5% Severity: TSS (0 to 20) = 10.6 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. There was SD imputation (TSS). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 11.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 458 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 16 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 51.6 (14SD) Gender (per cent men): 62.2% Ethnicity (per cent white): 93.9% Severity: mPASI = 9.39, range = 2.4 to 59.4; IGA moderate = 68.3%; IGA severe = 29.5%; IGA very severe = 2.2%; per cent BSA = 9.3 (8.2SD) Duration (yrs): 19.8 (13.3SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants achieving clear IGA stopped treatment and restarted if psoriasis reappeared. There was follow up of responders only (IGA clear or almost clear). | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the trial. Participants could not be completely blinded to treatment allocation because of differences in formulation and packaging (bottles for gel vs. tubes for ointments). Atrophy was not assessed. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | A designated third person performed allocation of the investigational products at all 18 centres. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator); it was not possible to blind participants to treatments because of differences in vehicle formulations. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 458 Severity: mPASI = 9.39, range = 2.4 to 59.4; IGA moderate = 68.3%; IGA severe = 29.5%; IGA very severe = 2.2%; per cent BSA = 9.3 (8.2SD) Duration (yrs): 19.8 (13.3SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants achieving clear IGA stopped treatment and restarted if psoriasis reappeared. There was follow up of responders only (IGA clear or almost clear). | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the trial. Participants could not be completely blinded to treatment allocation because of differences in formulation and packaging (bottles for gel vs. tubes for ointments). Atrophy was not assessed. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | A designated third person performed allocation of the investigational products at all 18 centres. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator); it was not possible to blind participants to treatments because of differences in vehicle formulations. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 29 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: mean: 40.5 (range = 16‐77) Gender (per cent men): 69.0% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. All participants received 2 weeks' pre‐treatment with vehicle BD. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 32 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 2 (6.3%) BC: yes Age: mean: 42.4 (range = 16 to 77) Gender (per cent men): 62.5% Severity: global severity score (0 to 4) = 3.5 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 6.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 44 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks (14 wks for responders) LF: 4 (9.1%) BC: not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): 54.5% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 9.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 44 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks (14 wks for responders) LF: 4 (9.1%) BC: not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): 54.5% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 9.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 50 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 8 (16%) BC: yes Age: 42.8 (range = 22 to 50; N = 42) Gender (per cent men): 45.2% (N = 42) Severity: TSS (0 to 12) = 7.72 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Block randomisation was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 16.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 81 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 5 (6.2%) BC: yes Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: pruritis (0 to 4) = 2.11 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Connetics Corporation sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 6.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 167 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 30 (18%) BC: yes Age: 48.0 Gender (per cent men): 58.7% Severity: Static Severity Score (SSS) (0 to 6) (median) = 3 (range = 1.5 to 5.0); per cent with concurrent plaque‐type lesions = 85% INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Fujisawa Healthcare Inc sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 18.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 418 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: NR separately (see notes) Age: NR Gender (per cent men): NR Severity: GSS (0 to 5) = 2.81 (0.40SD); DSS (0 to 12) (bony areas) = 6.4 (1.24SD); (non‐bony areas) = 6.4 (1.33SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma R&D Inc, Princeton, New Jersey, sponsored the trial. The main publication reports only pooled results and baseline statistics from 2 studies (Lebwohl 2007; Powers 2005). The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was not demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 142 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 14 wks LF: 11 (7.7%) BC: yes (clinical only) Age: NR Gender (per cent men): NR Severity: PASI = 3.75 (2.90SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Sponsor: NR The trial was set in Korea. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | Clinical assessments were reported; demographics were unclear. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | Only clinical comparability was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 29 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 2 wks LF: 2 (6.9%) BC: inadequately reported Age: 14 to 75 Gender (per cent men): 55.2% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 6.9% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 168 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 4 (2.4%) BC: stated, not demonstrated Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TLPSS = 6.69 (1.38 SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions | Participants were randomised to 2 of 7 treatments:
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Dermipsor Ltd sponsored the trial. The trial author supplied unpublished data. As participants were randomised to 2 of 7 treatments, some comparisons were within‐patient and others between‐patient. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The participants, investigators, study site personnel, sponsor, and laboratories were unaware of the treatment assignments; throughout the study, the study investigator retained a set of code envelopes that were to be opened by the investigator only if deemed necessary after a serious adverse event. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation table was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | Clinical comparability was stated (not demonstrated). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 168 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions | Participants were randomised to 2 of 7 treatments:
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Dermipsor Ltd sponsored the trial. The trial author supplied unpublished data. As participants were randomised to 2 of 7 treatments, some comparisons were within‐patient and others between‐patient. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The participants, investigators, study site personnel, sponsor, and laboratories were unaware of the treatment assignments; throughout the study, the study investigator retained a set of code envelopes that were to be opened by the investigator only if deemed necessary after a serious adverse event. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation table was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | Clinical comparability was stated (not demonstrated). |
| Methods | DESIGN Between‐patient | |
| Participants | N: 50 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 1 (2.0%) BC: yes Age: 39.6 (12.8SD); range 21 to 69 Gender (per cent men): 73.5% Target lesion: face (89.8%); genitofemoral (10.2%) Severity: TAS (0 to 12) = 6.2 (3.32SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
No concomitant topical therapies or emollients were permitted. Dosing frequency could be reduced or medication discontinued depending on level of irritancy. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma, Taiwan, sponsored the trial. Individual safety measures were reported, but the total number of participants experiencing any adverse event were not reported. The trial author supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 14 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 4 (28.6%) BC: yes Age: 35.8 (10.4SD), range = 21 to 54 Gender (per cent men): 78.6% Severity: PSI (0 to 12) = 9.9 (1.2SD); PASI = 11.7 (4.8SD), range = 5.5 to 19.2; per cent BSA = 13.6 (6.1SD), range = 3% to 20% Duration (yrs): 110.8 (9.4SD); range = 2 to 30 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The sponsor was not reported. Assessments were conducted by 2 blinded investigators. A 3‐month uncontrolled follow‐study also conducted. The trial author supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | High risk | 28.6% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 42 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: Yes Age: 34.6 (11.SD); range = 18 to 58 Gender (per cent men): 76.2% Severity: PASI (median) = 14.7; per cent BSA (median) = 18%; TSS (0 to 24) = 18.8 (3.03SD) Duration (yrs): 10 (median); range = 2 to 41 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants achieving clearance before study end point could stop treatment. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial was supported by a grant: CMRPG33024 from Chang Gung Memorial Hospital. Participants were instructed to wash skin thoroughly before visits; assessments were based on photographs. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 171 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 16 wks LF: not reported BC: psoriasis comparable, demographics unclear Age: not stated Gender (per cent men): not stated Severity: TSS (scale NR) = 6.24 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Bioglan Laboratories sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient detail. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 192 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 48.65; range = 19 to 79 Gender (per cent men): 65.6% Ethnicity (per cent white): 82.8% Severity: DSS (0 to 12) = 7.60 (1.55SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants were randomised to clobetasol propionate cream or lotion; results were aggregated for review purposes. Other affected areas could also be treated. There was a 4‐wk treatment‐ free follow‐up period. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma R&D, Sophia Antipolis, France, sponsored the trial. We sought unpublished data, but it was reported to be unavailable. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator); as the cream and lotion were compared, it was not possible to blind participants. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Participants allocated in consecutive balanced blocks of 7 using the following ratios: 3:3:1. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 869 Treatment duration: 52 wks; FU: 52 wks LF: 55 (6.3%) BC: yes Age: 48.7 (15.0SD), range = 18 to 86 Gender (per cent men): 44.0% Ethnicity (per cent white): 96.7% Severity: IGA moderate = 55.5%; IGA severe = 37.8%; IGA very severe = 6.7% Duration (yrs): 17.6 (14.2SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants achieving clearance could stop treatment, but remained in the trial, and restart as needed. The regimen was intended to reflect usual clinical practice. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma, Ballerup, Denmark,sponsored the trial. Adverse events were recorded by investigators and reviewed by an adjudication committee (Data Safety Monitoring Board) comprising of 3 dermatologists blinded to treatment assignment. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | This was not stated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 6.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 34 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 10 (29.4%) BC: yes (clinical only) Age: NR Gender (per cent men): 55.9% Severity: mPASI = 6.3 (2.2SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not state the sponsor. This was an abstract only. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | High risk | 29.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | Clinical assessments were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | Clinical comparability was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 121 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 6 (5.0%) BC: yes, except duration of disease (P = 0.04) Age: 53.8 (range = 16 to 80) Gender (per cent men): 67.8% Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 6.6 Duration (yrs): 17.9 (range = 1 to 52) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial was supported in part by a grant from Schering Corporation. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 67.8% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | Baseline comparability was demonstrated (only significant difference: duration of disease). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 134 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 6 (4.5%) BC: unclear Age: 47 (range = 20 to 81) Gender (per cent men): not stated Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 6.5; per cent unstable psoriasis = 28% INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Dermik Laboratories Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 122 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Laboratories, LP, sponsored the trial. Atrophy was not assessed. Telangiectasia was not assessed. 29 participants were 'non‐compliant' with treatment, but intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis included all enrolled participants. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open (blinding not reported, but product vehicles differ). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 421 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 4 (1%) BC: Psoriasis comparable, demographics not reported Age: not stated Gender (per cent men): not stated Severity: no summary measure reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 70 Treatment duration: 10 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: not reported BC: yes Age: 45.7 Gender (per cent men): 57.1% Severity: PASI =
Duration (yrs): 17 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 34 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: psoriasis comparable, demographics inadequately reported. Age: 43 (range = 26 to 75) Gender (per cent men): 58.8% Severity: PASI = 12.2 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals, Denmark Duration (yrs) sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 378 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 1 (0.3%) BC: yes Age: 46 (range = 18 to 88) Gender (per cent men): 45% Severity: 80% moderate (6 ≤ TSS < 7.5), 20% severe (TSS > 7.5) Duration (yr): 12.0 (9.7SD, N = 377); range = 0.4 to 55.0 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | In part, Glaxo Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 181 | |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 207 | |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 77 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 10 (range = 2 to 14) Gender (per cent men): 46.8% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products, Denmark, sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 12 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 2 wks LF: unclear BC: unclear Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TSS (0 to 24) =12.2 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Wyeth‐Ayerst Research and Glaxo Dermatology sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 17 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TSS (0 to 24) = 15.5 (SD: 3.7; N = 17) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 24 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 2 (8.3%) BC: yes Age: 47.5 (range = 28 to 78) Gender (per cent men): 75.0% Severity: TSS (0 to 24) = 17.0 (3.3SD, N = 22) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Dosing frequency was not reported. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Wyeth Research, Philadelphia, sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Block randomisation was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 9.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 188 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 32 (17.0%) BC: yes Age: 46.0 (range = 20 to 85) Gender (per cent men) 67.3% Severity: per cent BSA = 18.9%; PASI = 11.67; per cent unstable psoriasis = 40% Duration (yrs): 14.9 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was sequential. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 17.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 75 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 10 (13.3%) BC: yes, within‐patient design but comparability of lesions at baseline not reported Age: 44.5 (14.5SD: range = 18.8 to 70.7) Gender (per cent men): 53% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship, but 2 authors worked for Galderma, France | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated block list was used for randomisation. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 13.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 501 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 21 (4.2%) BC: yes Age: 51.2 (15.0SD, N = 501) Gender (per cent men): 54.9% Severity: PASI = 9.8 (6.1SD, N = 501) Duration (yrs): 19.4 (14.6SD, N = 501) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 124 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 14 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 48.2 (14.8SD); range = 18 to 82 Gender (per cent men): 68.5% Ethnicity (per cent white): 96.0% Severity: per cent BSA = 6.3 ((2.2SD), range = 1% to 10%; LPSI (0 to 12) = 7.2 (1.7SD), range = 4 to 12; PASI (range NS) = 7.1 (3.7SD), range = 1.4 to 21.8 Duration (yrs): 18.9 (13.9SD); range = 0.7 to 69.3 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
There were10 to 14 hours between applications; lesions were treated for 7 days following clearance. Participants were randomised to tacrolimus cream or gel; results were aggregated for review purposes. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Fujisawa GmbH, Munich, Germany, sponsored the trial. Vissers 2008 (secondary reference under Ortonne 2006) reports immunohistochemistry findings for subgroup (N = 18). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator); as the cream and gel were compared, it was not possible to blind participants. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was generated by the sponsor and stratified by centre. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 408 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 9 (2.2%) BC: yes Age: 45.6; range = 18 to 86 Gender (per cent men): 54.7% Ethnicity (per cent white): 97.8% Severity: PASI = 9.6, range = 0.9 to 32.7; IGA moderate = 68.6% Duration (yrs): 17.7; range = 0 to 70 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes | Outcomes were assessed for the face and body overall and for the face only:
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A preplanned computer‐generated schedule was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 22 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 2 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: no Age: 41.3 (3.94SD) Gender (per cent men): 45.5% Severity: NS INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The sponsor was not stated. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details (abstract only). |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this (but this was a within‐patient study, so demographics will be comparable by definition). |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was not demonstrated (see comment above). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1043 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 15 (1.4%) BC: yes Age: 47.1 Gender (per cent men): 58.4% Severity: mean PASI = 10.8 (range = 1 to 36) Duration: 18.7 years INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Treatments were assigned by computer‐generated code and assigned chronologically at each centre. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). Treatments were identifiable only by a code number. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. (3:3:3:1) |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1043 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Treatments were assigned by computer‐generated code and assigned chronologically at each centre. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator), and treatments were identifiable only by a code number. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. (3:3:3:1) |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 235 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: Unclear BC: psoriasis comparable, demographics not reported. Age: 45.1 (range = 18 to 86) Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 4.75 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Bristol‐Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 89 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 4 (4.5%) BC: yes Age: 46 (15SD) Gender (per cent men): 44.8% Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 7.15 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants washed their hair with a non‐medicated shampoo after treatment. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship, but the corresponding author worked for Hill Dermaceuticals Inc, US. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 84 Treatment duration: 10 wks: FU: 52 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 46 (range = 19 to 76) Gender (per cent men): 65.5% Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 7.6 (range = 5 to 9) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The NIH General Clinical Research Center supported the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 132 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 10 (7.6%) BC: yes Age: 48.2 (range = 17 to 90) Gender (per cent men): 59.1% Severity: per cent severe = 13.6% Duration (yrs): 16.9 (range = 0.5 to 60) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.6% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 217 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Laboratories, LP, sponsored the trial. The trial (JDT) reported findings for a subset with moderate scalp psoriasis. The sponsor supplied unpublished safety data. No useable efficacy data were available. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | 20.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported (clinical and demographic). |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 421 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Max 30 g/day | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Laboratories, LP, sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. This was an abstract only. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | Clinical assessments were reported (demographic characteristics was unclear). |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | Clinical comparability was demonstrated (demographic comparability was unclear). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 151 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Galderma Laboratories, LP, sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation list was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 178 Treatment duration: 2 + 4 wks; FU: 14 wks LF: 7 (3.9%) BC: psoriasis comparable, demographics not reported Age: 42 (range = 18 to 80) Gender (per cent men): 55.6% Severity: PASI = 6.0 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not state sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 3.9% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 63 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 5 (7.9%) BC: yes Age: 47 (15.4SD, range = 19 to 83) Gender (per cent men): 54.0% Severity: PASI = 5.5 (2.65SD) Duration (months): 141 (124SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Schering Wien GmbH sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.9% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 28 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 3 (10.7%) BC: yes Age: 49.5 (range = 22 to 73) Gender (per cent men): 50% Severity: PASI = 7.7 (range = 4 to 10) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 85 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 4 (4.7%) BC: clinical only Age: 51.9 (range = 18.8 to 88.5) Gender (per cent men): 55.3% Severity: PASI = 6.2 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | IDI Farmaceuticia SpA sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 4.7% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 150 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 3 (2.0%) BC: yes Age: 47.7 (16.5SD); range = 18 to 83 Gender (per cent men): 66.0% Severity: per cent BSA = 18.6 (7.6SD), range 2 to 30; PASI = 9.2 (4.8SD), range = 1.6 to 33.0 Duration (yrs): 13.8 (13.4SD); range = 0 to 60.1 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Prodotti Formenti Srl, Milano, Italy, sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Consecutive coded treatment boxes were assigned to participants in a 1:1 ratio. It was unclear if boxes were of identical appearance. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation schedule was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 2.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported (clinical and demographic). |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated (clinical and demographic). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 160 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 10 wks LF: not reported BC: demographics comparable, severity not reported Age: 50 Gender (per cent men): 68.1% Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 76 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 13 (17.1%) BC: yes Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TSS (0 to 12) = 7.92 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Block randomisation was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 17.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 157 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 7 wks LF: 23 (14.6%) BC: yes Age: 49 (15SD; N = 134) Gender (per cent men): 65.6% (N = 157) Severity: TSS (0 to 12) = 7.7 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship, but Istituto Gentili SpA provided medications and appeared to have undertaken the randomisation. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 14.6% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 190 participants Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 21 (11%) BC: yes Age: 44 (range = 19 to 73) Gender (per cent men): 47.9% Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 6.0 Duration (yrs): 17 (range = 1 to 56) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 11% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 14 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 3 (21.4%) BC: yes Age: 46 (range 23 to 69, N = 26) Gender (per cent men): 46.2% (N = 26) Severity: TSS = 6.31 (1.25SD, N = 11) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Demographic characteristics were summarised over both studies, placebo and active controls (N = 26). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | 21.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 12 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Demographic characteristics were summarised over both studies, placebo and active controls (N = 26). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 8.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 40 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 3 (7.5%) BC: yes Age: 41.4 (12.0SD) Gender (per cent men):60.0% Severity: investigator's overall assessment (0 to 9) = 4.85; patient's overall assessment (0 to 4) = 2.43 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Stiefel Laboratories sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Block randomisation was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 10 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 1 (10%) BC: yes Age: 50 (26 to 76) Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 7.3 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products supplied the drugs and undertook the statistical analysis. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 40 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 3 (7.5%) BC: unclear Age: range = 20 to 70 + Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: TSS (elbows) (0 to 12) = 7.0 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The Connetics Corporation sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | High risk | Allocation concealment was inadequate: The investigator undertook randomisation. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 13 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 2 (15.4%) BC: yes Age: 52.9 (12.2SD, range = 38 to 67) Gender (per cent men): 76.9% Severity: PASI = 9.11 (4.88SD, range = 2.20 to 18.70) Duration: 20.8 (12.7SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Regeneratio Pharma AG sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 15.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 15 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 2 (13.3%) BC: not reported Age: range = 21 to 68 Gender (per cent men): The trial did not report this. Severity: TSS (scale not reported) = 2.8 (0.3SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Babcock Dermatologic Endowment and the alumni of the Department of Dermatology, University of Michigan Medical Center, MI, sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Body sites were selected then assigned a computer‐generated randomisation code that was concealed from both investigators and participants. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 13.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 78 (57% psoriasis) Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 0% BC: Inadequately reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The Squibb Institute for Medical Research sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The part of the study (I or II) and side of the body chosen for treatment were concealed from investigators and determined by random numbers table. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 53 participants Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 5 (9.4%) BC: yes Age: range = 26 to 67 Gender (per cent men): 58.5% Severity: duration (yrs) = 2 to 50 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Cato Research Ltd and Durham Pharmaceuticals LLC, NC, sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 9.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 60 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 52 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 25.6 (range = 18 to 50) Gender (per cent men): 60.0% Severity: PASI = 9.3 (range = 4.8 to 16.7) Duration (yrs): 8.5 (range = 1 to 21) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 60 participants Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 29.3 (range = 18 to 70) Gender (per cent men): 61.7% Severity: PASI = 9.8 (range = 5.3 to 17.5) Duration (yrs): 9.6 (range = 1 to 24) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 30 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 3 (10%) BC: yes Age: 40 (range = 20 to 74) Gender (per cent men): 56.7% Ethnicity: Chinese (70.0%), Indian (16.7%), Malay (10.0%), and Sikh (3.3%) Severity: PASI = 6.65 Duration (years): 9.7 (range = 2 to 20) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was computer‐generated. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 177 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 52 wks LF: 0 (0%) (at 8 wks) BC: yes Age: 44.7 (range = 18 to 76) Gender (per cent men): 63.3% Ethnicity: per cent white = 0%; per cent Hispanic/Latino: 56%; per cent black/African American = 44% Severity: scalp IGA (moderate) = 80.2%; scalp IGA (severe/very severe) = 19.8%; TSS (0 to 12) = 6.3, range = 4 to 11 Duration (yrs): 10.8, range = 1 to 50 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Maximum of 40 g/wk. Treatment was stopped if scalp psoriasis cleared. Concurrent (scalp) antipsoriatics and 'chemical treatments of the hair' were not permitted. All participants received C‐B ointment for trunk/limbs. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S sponsored the trial This was part of a 52‐wk study: Following 8 wks of double‐blind treatment, all participants received C‐B scalp formulation for 44 wks. Data were reported only for the 8‐wk end point. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Participants were assigned the next consecutive randomisation number available at the site for his/her ethnic category. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | Randomisation was preplanned according to a computer‐generated randomisation schedule in a ratio of 3:1, stratified by ethnicity. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated (reported means, but not standard, deviations; proportions reported). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 23 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 16 wks LF: 4 (17.4%) BC: yes Age: 60.2; range = 12 to 80 Gender (per cent men): 91.3% Severity: Signs = mean baseline scores ranged from 2.1 to 2.3 (SD range = 0.71 to 0.80) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not state the sponsor. The number of adverse events was described, but the number of participants experiencing ADRs was not reported. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The study was single‐blind (investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | 17.4% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | Clinical assessments were reported (within‐patient study, so demographics comparable). |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | Clinical comparability was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 42 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 3 (7.1%) BC: yes Age: 32 (12.22SD) Gender (per cent men): 66.7% Severity: PASI = 10.86 (5.15SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not state the sponsor. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was by the flip of a coin. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 10 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: range = 28 to 72 Gender (per cent men): 70% Severity: TSS (0 to 9) = 7.2 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship, but Hoffmann‐La Roche, Switzerland , employed 1 of the authors. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | A randomisation code was generated centrally and concealed from the investigator until after trial completion. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 122 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 19 (15.6%) BC: inadequately reported Age: 44.8 (13.69SD) Gender (per cent men): 62.3% Severity: BSA = 5.6% Duration (mths): 233.5 (175.9SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Hermal Kurt Herrmann sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 15.6% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 88 participants Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 5 wks LF: 7 (8.0%) BC: yes Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: PASI = 16.9 (range = 4.3 to 48.0) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceutical Products sponsored the trial. The trial included inpatients. The trial reported medication quantities used: "patients complied well". 'High dose' calcipotriol was given (above recommended dosage). IAGI/PAGI: combined scalp/body | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 8.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 106 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age (mean): 51.2; range = 25 to 83 Gender (per cent men): 59/100 (reported by de Korte 2008 ‐ this is a secondary reference under Van de Kerkhof 2006); 6 participants missing) Ethnicity: NR Severity: mPASI (mean) = 9.9, range = 2.7 to 27.0 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants intolerant of 0.1% dithranol used 0.05% dose. Cases of extensive hyperkeratosis, scales of participants in both treatment groups could be removed with salicylic acid (5%) in petrolatum before wk 0. Participants achieving clearance exited the study. | |
| Outcomes | PRIMARY OUTCOMES
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma sponsored the trial. Secondary response criteria did not demonstrate a statistically significant difference between treatments. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The treatment was assignment using a telephone voice response system, to ensure that the investigators' decision to randomise the participant preceded knowledge of the randomised treatment. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was through a computer‐generated system using telephone response. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated (de Korte 2008). There were significantly more men in the dithranol group (72% versus 46%). However, de Korte does not provide data on 6 participants. If all these participants are assumed to be of the gender that minimises between group differences, the difference is almost statistically significant at the 5% level (= 0.0502; Fisher's exact test). This may indicate a flawed randomisation process, or it may be chance. The primary reference does not report variance around mean PASI baseline estimates, so comparability was unclear. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1417 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 8 wks LF: 2 (0.1%) BC: yes Age: 48.3 (16.4SD); range = 18 to 92 Gender (per cent men): 44.8% Ethnicity (per cent white): 97.2% Severity: IGA (0 to 5) = 3.32 (0.71SD), range = 2 to 5; TSS (0 to 12) = 6.8 (1.8SD) Duration (yrs): 15.9 (13.4SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Participants achieving IGA = 0 could stop medication during the study. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S, Ballerup, Denmark, sponsored the trial. The sponsor supplied unpublished data. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A computer‐generated randomisation schedule was used (1:2:2). |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 10 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 2 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: inadequately reported Age: range = 20 to 72 Gender (per cent men): 40% Severity: PASI (modified) = 17.1 (2.1SEM) Duration (yrs): 3 to 53 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 36 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 3 of 36 (8.3%) BC: yes Age: 45.7 (range = 10 to 66; N = 33) Gender (per cent men): 48.5% (N = 33) Severity: TSS (0 to 20) = 9.9 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The sequential trial admission number corresponded to the randomisation schedule; the randomisation code was 'double blind'. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was sequential. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 8.3% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 287 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: psoriasis comparable, demographics inadequately reported Age: 45.0 Gender (per cent men): 53.7% Severity: BSA = 7.9% (range = 1% to 75%); TSS (0 to 12) = 7.59 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Nycomed Pharma sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Block randomisation was used. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 60 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: inadequately reported Age: range = 18 to 70 Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: PASI = 2.92 Duration (yrs): range = 0.2 to 30 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 10 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 1 (10%) BC: yes Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: BSA = 5% to 15% Duration (mean years): 20 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship, but Hydro Pharma, Swedenone, employed 1 of the authors. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 10.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 306 Treatment duration: 3 mths LF: 28 (7.2%) BC: yes Age: 46.7 Gender (per cent men): 47.1% Severity: duration (yrs) = 18.7 Signs and extent reported, but not by summary measure INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 7.2% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 324 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 24 wks LF: 6 (1.9%) BC: yes Age: 46.8 (range = 12 to 83) Gender (per cent men): 67% Severity: per cent BSA = 6.9 (5.2SD); TSS (0 to 12) = 7.3 Duration (yrs): 17.5 (12.7SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Allergan Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 1.9% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1303 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 24 wks LF: 411 (31.5%) BC: yes Age: 48.2 (range = 18 to 84) Gender (per cent men): 62.6% Severity: OLA (0 to 5) (mean) = 3.6; BSA affected (mean) = 10.5% Duration (mean yrs): 18.4 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Allergan Inc. sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Block randomisation was used. |
| Loss to follow up | High risk | 31.5% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1136 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 50.7; range = 18 to 89 Gender (per cent men): 60.7% Ethnicity (per cent white): 96.9% Severity: per cent BSA = 12.1%; mPASI = 8.9 (3.8SD), range = 2.4 to 30.9; IGA moderate = 76%; IGA severe = 24% Duration (yrs): 0 to 75 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Use < = 100 g/wk | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S sponsored the trial. Atrophy was not assessed. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open in the acute phase and maintenance phase for CB‐W and double‐blind (participant/investigator) in the maintenance phase for CB‐C and CB‐P. It was not possible to blind the alternating group (CB‐W), as the vehicles were different. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A preplanned computer‐generated randomisation schedule was used (1:1:1). |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated (reported means, but not standard, deviations; proportions reported). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 1136 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 50.7; range = 18 to 89 Gender (per cent men): 60.7% Ethnicity (per cent white): 96.9% Severity: per cent BSA = 12.1%; mPASI = 8.9 (3.8SD), range = 2.4 to 30.9; IGA moderate = 76%; IGA severe = 24% Duration (yrs): 0 to 75 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Use < = 100 g/wk | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharma A/S sponsored the trial. Atrophy was not assessed. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | High risk | The trial was open in the acute phase and maintenance phase for CB‐W and double‐blind (participant/investigator) in the maintenance phase for CB‐C and CB‐P. It was not possible to blind the alternating group (CB‐W), as the vehicles were different. |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | A preplanned computer‐generated randomisation schedule was used (1:1:1). |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated (reported means, but not standard, deviations; proportions reported). |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 52 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 12 (23.1%) BC: yes Age: 44.7 (range = 18 to 77; N = 40) Gender (per cent men): 70%; N = 40 Severity: TSS (0 to 9) (median) = 7.1 (range = 6.0 to 9.0) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/investigator). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | 23.1% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 76 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | Leo Pharmaceuticals sponsored the trial. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The sequential trial admission number corresponded to a treatment unit on a randomisation schedule. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/physician). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was sequential. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 9 Treatment duration: 3 wks; FU: 3 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: The trial did not report this. Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | The sequential trial admission number corresponded to a treatment unit on a randomisation schedule. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (participant/physician). |
| Randomisation method reported | Low risk | Randomisation was sequential. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 38 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes (statistical significance not reported) Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: not reported INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not report sponsorship. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient detail. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (it was unclear who was blinded). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0.0% |
| Baseline assessments | Unclear risk | The trial did not report these. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | ‐ |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 76 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: range = 18 to 65 Gender (per cent men): 68.4% Severity: PASI = 14.3 (5.5SD), range = 4.2 to 19.6 Duration (yrs): range = 0.5 to 34 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
Treatments were stopped when 90% improvement achieved. | |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The trial did not state the sponsor. There was 1 case of skin atrophy in the monotherapy group. We received translation support for data extraction. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Low risk | 0% |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were reported. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Low risk | This was demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 70 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: not reported BC: Yes (clinical); demographics not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: median LPSI ranged from 7.0 (C;T) to 8.0 (P) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The study was double‐blind (but unmatched regimens). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (but unmatched regimens) (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | These were partially done. |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
| Methods | DESIGN | |
| Participants | N: 70 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: not reported BC: yes (clinical), demographics not reported Age: not reported Gender (per cent men): not reported Severity: median LPSI ranged from 7.0 (C;T) to 8.0 (P) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
| |
| Interventions |
| |
| Outcomes |
| |
| Notes | The study was double‐blind (but unmatched regimens). | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | The trial reported insufficient details. |
| Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) | Low risk | The trial was double‐blind (but unmatched regimens) (participant/assessor). |
| Randomisation method reported | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Loss to follow up | Unclear risk | The trial did not report this. |
| Baseline assessments | Low risk | ‐ |
| Baseline comparability demonstrated | Unclear risk | This was partially demonstrated. |
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
| The study did not provide a comparison of interest (compared acitretin gel in 2 formulations). | |
| The trialists did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study compared steroid against no treatment (rather than against placebo). | |
| The study was within‐patient, but did not adopt clear left‐right design and assessed multiple plaques for each participant. | |
| The trialists did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study compared steroid against no treatment (rather than against placebo). | |
| The sponsor did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study assessed multiple plaques for each participant (7 per participant). | |
| The trialists or sponsor did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| This was a nail psoriasis trial, which was removed in the 2011 update. | |
| The comparator was not strictly placebo (salicylic acid in vehicle). | |
| The comparator was not strictly placebo (urea in vehicle). | |
| It was unclear if it was a valid randomised controlled trial. | |
| The study did not provide a comparison of interest. | |
| The sponsors did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study did not assess patient outcomes/tolerability | |
| The study did not assess patient outcomes/tolerability. | |
| The trialists did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study was not randomised. | |
| No adequate data were reported. | |
| The study was not randomised. | |
| The study did not provide a comparison of interest. | |
| Participants were randomised to the 2 substudies, but within the substudies, treatments were applied without randomisation. | |
| This was a dose‐ranging study of an unlicensed product not subsequently marketed. | |
| The study did not provide a simple comparison against a vitamin D₃ derivative treatment. | |
| The trialists or sponsor did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The trialists or sponsor did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study did not provide a comparison of interest. | |
| The study did not provide a comparison of interest. | |
| The trialists or sponsor did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study did not provide a comparison of interest (product unlicensed). | |
| The trialists or sponsor did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study did not provide a simple comparison against a vitamin D₃ derivative treatment. | |
| The study did not provide a simple comparison against a vitamin D₃ derivative treatment. | |
| This was a nail psoriasis trial, which was removed in the 2011 update. | |
| The trialists or sponsor did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study used concomitant UV light. | |
| The trialists did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| No translation was available. | |
| This was a nail psoriasis trial, which was removed in the 2011 update. | |
| The study used concomitant UV light. | |
| The trialists did not report or make available adequate data. | |
| The study was not a randomised controlled trial. |
Characteristics of studies awaiting assessment [ordered by study ID]
| Methods | DESIGN |
| Participants | N: 61 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 50.6 (22 to 65) Gender (per cent men): 83.6% Severity: PGA = 3.3 (0.6SD); PASI = 6.0 (2.5SD); BSA = 3.2% (2.0SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | Welichem Biotech Inc. sponsored the trial. |
| Methods | DESIGN |
| Participants | N: 200 INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | Incyte Corporation sponsored the trial. |
| Methods | DESIGN |
| Participants | N: 20 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: 16 wks LF: 2 (10%) BC: yes Age: 40.2 (range = 19 to 68) Gender (per cent men): 40% Severity: PSI = median 8 (IQR = 7 to 9.25) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | The sponsor was not stated. |
| Methods | DESIGN Described |
| Participants | N: 13 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 4 wks LF: 3 (23.0%) BC: NS Age: NS Gender (per cent men): NS Severity: NS INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | Galderma sponsored the trial. This was an abstract only. |
| Methods | DESIGN |
| Participants | N: 61 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 2 (3%) BC: yes Age: 49.2 (14.3SD) Gender (per cent men): 34% Severity: PASI = 12.9 (5.3SD) Ethnicity: Japanese INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
Treatments were applied after bathing. Participants achieving 50% reduction in baseline PASI then used calcipotriol once daily for a further 12 weeks. |
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | The Japanese Ministry of Education, Science, Sports, and Culture sponsored the trial. |
| Methods | DESIGN |
| Participants | N: 32 Treatment duration: 2 wks; FU: 2 wks LF: NS BC: no Age: NS Gender (per cent men): NS Severity: NS INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | Stiefel, a GSK company, sponsored the trial. |
| Methods | DESIGN Random |
| Participants | N: 41 Treatment duration: 4 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 1 (2%) BC: yes Age (median): 44 (23 to 77) Gender (per cent men): 65% Severity: duration (yrs; median) = 15 (range = 2 to 60) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | Psoriasisfonden sponsored the trial. |
| Methods | DESIGN |
| Participants | N: 60 Treatment duration: 12 wks; FU: 12 wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: yes Age: 32.5 (15.6SD) Gender (per cent men): 51.7% Severity: PASI = 3.9 (1.9SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | The sponsor was not stated. |
| Methods | DESIGN |
| Participants | N: 12 Treatment duration: 8 wks; FU: x wks LF: 0 (0%) BC: no Age: 43.8 (range = 21 to 58) Gender (per cent men): 83.3% Severity: NS INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Notes | ‐ |
| Methods | This will need to be translated; details to follow at next update. |
| Participants | N: 60 Treatment duration: 6 wks; FU: 6 wks LF: unclear BC: unclear Age: range = 14 to 65 Gender (per cent men): unclear Severity: unclear INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes | This will need to be translated; details to follow at next update. |
| Notes | This will need to be translated; details to follow at next update. |
Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]
| Trial name or title | Combined Inhibition of Dipeptidyl Peptidase IV (DPIV/CD26) and Aminopeptidase N (APN/CD13) in the Treatment of Psoriasis ‐ Phase II Single Center Study |
| Methods | Allocation: randomised End point classification: safety/efficacy study Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: double‐blind (participant, caregiver, investigator, outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants |
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Starting date | January 2009 |
| Contact information | Alexander Narvarini, MD |
| Notes | Immune Technologies & Medicine GmbH http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT00824980 |
| Trial name or title | A Double‐Blind, Vehicle‐Controlled, Randomized, Dose Ranging, Multiple‐Site Clinical Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Desoximetasone Topical Sprays (0.05%, 0.25%) in Patients With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis |
| Methods | Allocation: randomised End point classification: safety/efficacy study Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: double‐blind (participant, caregiver, investigator, outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants |
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Starting date | November 2009 |
| Contact information | Darin B Brimhall, D.O., FACP Study Director Novum Pharmaceutical Research Services |
| Notes | Taro Pharmaceuticals USA http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01018134 |
| Trial name or title | A Double‐Blind, Vehicle‐Controlled, Randomized, Parallel Design, Multiple‐Site Clinical Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Desoximetasone 0.25% Topical Spray in Patients With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis |
| Methods | Allocation: randomised |
| Participants | Genders eligible for study: both Accepts healthy volunteers: no
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
|
| Starting date | August 2010 |
| Contact information | Gail Gongas |
| Notes | Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Study ID number: DSXS‐0808 http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01206387 |
| Trial name or title | A Double‐Blind, Vehicle‐Controlled, Randomized, Parallel Design, Multiple‐Site Clinical Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Desoximetasone 0.25% Topical Spray in Patients With Moderate to Severe Plaque Psoriasis |
| Methods | Study type: Interventional Study design: Allocation: randomised End point classification: safety/efficacy study Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: double‐blind (participant, investigator, outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants | Accepts healthy volunteers: no
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes | PRIMARY OUTCOMES
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
|
| Starting date | August 2010 |
| Contact information | Gail Gongas Telephone: 412 363 3300 ext: 522 |
| Notes | Taro Pharmaceuticals USA Study ID number: DSXS‐0914 http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01206660 |
| Trial name or title | A Phase 2a, Multi Site, Randomized, Double Blind, Placebo Controlled, Parallel Group Study Of The Pilot Efficacy, Safety, And Pharmacokinetics Of 2 Ointment Formulations Of CP‐690,550 In Subjects With Mild To Moderate Chronic Plaque Psoriasis |
| Methods | Study type: interventional Study design: allocation: randomised End point classification: safety/efficacy study Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: double‐blind (participant, investigator) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants | Ages eligible for study: 18 years and older Genders eligible for study: both Accepts healthy volunteers: no
INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes | PRIMARY OUTCOMES
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
|
| Starting date | November 22 2010 |
| Contact information | Pfizer CT.gov Call Center |
| Notes | Pfizer |
| Trial name or title | A Phase 2 Dose‐Randomized, Vehicle‐Controlled Study of PH‐10‐Aqueous Hydrogel for the Treatment of Plaque Psoriasis |
| Methods | Study type: interventional Study design: allocation: randomised End point classification: safety/efficacy study Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: single‐blind (outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants | Accepts healthy volunteers: no
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes | PRIMARY OUTCOMES
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
|
| Starting date | December 2010 |
| Contact information | Eric Wachter, PhD Provectus Pharmaceuticals |
| Notes | Provectus Pharmaceuticals http://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT01247818 |
| Trial name or title | Efficacy and Safety of LEO 90105 Ointment (Calcipotriol Hydrate Plus Betamethasone Dipropionate) in Japanese Subjects With Psoriasis Vulgaris |
| Methods | Study type: interventional Study design: allocation: randomised End point classification: efficacy study Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: double‐blind (participant, caregiver, investigator, outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants | Accepts healthy volunteers: No
Participants having understood and signed a written informed consent form prior to any study related procedures being carried out.
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes | PRIMARY OUTCOMES
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
|
| Starting date | July 2011 |
| Contact information | Akira Ozawa, MD, Professor, Principal Investigator Tokai University School of Medicine |
| Notes | LEO 90105 ointment contains both calcipotriol and betamethasone dipropionate. It has been approved for the treatment of psoriasis in more than 60 centres, including most European countries, the US, China, Korea, and Taiwan. This trial will investigate its safety and efficacy in the treatment of Japanese participants with psoriasis. LEO Pharma |
| Trial name or title | A Randomized, Placebo‐controlled, Phase IIb Study to Evaluate the Efficacy, Safety and Tolerability of 0.05%, 0.1% and 0.5% w/w Topical CT327 When Applied Twice Daily in Subjects With Psoriasis Vulgaris |
| Methods | Study type: interventional Study design: allocation: randomised End point classification: safety/efficacy study Intervention model: single group assignment Masking: double‐blind (participant, caregiver, investigator, outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants | Accepts healthy volunteers: no INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes | PRIMARY OUTCOMES
SECONDARY OUTCOMES
|
| Starting date | November 1, 2011 |
| Contact information | No contacts or locations provided |
| Notes | Creabilis SA |
| Trial name or title | LEO 90100 Compared With Calcipotriol Plus Betamethasone Dipropionate Ointment, LEO 90100 Vehicle and Ointment Vehicle in Subjects With Psoriasis Vulgaris |
| Methods | Allocation: randomised End point classification: efficacy study Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: double‐blind (caregiver, investigator, outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants | Accepts healthy volunteers: no
INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
|
| Starting date | May 2012 |
| Contact information | Anders Ninn Hansen, MSc Pharm |
| Notes | ‐ |
| Trial name or title | LEO 90100 in the Treatment of Psoriasis Vulgaris |
| Methods | Study type: interventional Study design: allocation: randomised End point classification: efficacy study Intervention model: parallel assignment Masking: double‐blind (participant, caregiver, investigator, outcomes assessor) Primary purpose: treatment |
| Participants | Accepts healthy volunteers: no INCLUSION CRITERIA
EXCLUSION CRITERIA
|
| Interventions |
|
| Outcomes |
(Designated as safety issue: no) |
| Starting date | May 2012 |
| Contact information | Anders Ninn Hansen, MSc Pharm |
| Notes | ‐ |
Data and analyses
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 1.1  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol | 10 | 2287 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.93 [‐1.17, ‐0.68] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.3 Calcitriol | 6 | 1120 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.03 [‐1.71, ‐0.36] |
| 1.4 Tacalcitol | 2 | 433 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.84 [‐1.41, ‐0.26] |
| 1.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 103 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.43 [‐1.91, ‐0.96] |
| 1.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.66 [‐2.66, ‐0.67] |
| 1.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 121 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.22 [‐0.58, 0.14] |
| 1.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 119 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.67 [‐1.04, ‐0.30] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 19 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 1.2  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol | 10 | 1208 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.15 [‐1.41, ‐0.89] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 1 | 187 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.44, 0.14] |
| 2.3 Calcitriol | 4 | 1027 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.22 [‐2.38, ‐0.07] |
| 2.4 Tacalcitol | 3 | 496 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.66 [‐0.95, ‐0.36] |
| 2.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 103 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.61 [‐2.10, ‐1.12] |
| 2.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.15 [‐3.24, ‐1.06] |
| 2.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 121 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.37, 0.34] |
| 2.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 119 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.46 [‐0.83, ‐0.10] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 9 | 2422 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.58 [‐0.71, ‐0.45] |
| Analysis 1.3  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol | 8 | 2195 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.65 [‐0.75, ‐0.55] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Tacalcitol | 1 | 227 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.27 [‐0.56, 0.03] |
| 3.5 Maxacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Paricalcitol OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 5 | 1467 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.54 [‐0.72, ‐0.36] |
| Analysis 1.4  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol | 2 | 439 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.64 [‐0.97, ‐0.30] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Calcitriol | 2 | 801 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.59 [‐0.76, ‐0.41] |
| 4.4 Tacalcitol | 1 | 227 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.24 [‐0.53, 0.05] |
| 4.5 Maxacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Paricalcitol OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 1.5  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol | 17 | 3269 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.96 [‐1.15, ‐0.77] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 1 | 187 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.44, 0.14] |
| 5.3 Calcitriol | 7 | 1140 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.92 [‐1.54, ‐0.29] |
| 5.4 Tacalcitol | 4 | 723 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.73 [‐1.09, ‐0.37] |
| 5.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 103 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.43 [‐1.91, ‐0.96] |
| 5.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.66 [‐2.66, ‐0.67] |
| 5.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 121 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.22 [‐0.58, 0.14] |
| 5.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 119 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.67 [‐1.04, ‐0.30] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 25 | 4715 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.05, 0.00] |
| Analysis 1.6  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol | 14 | 3132 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.06, 0.00] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.3 Calcitriol | 5 | 339 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 6.4 Tacalcitol | 4 | 857 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.14, 0.05] |
| 6.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [‐0.01, 0.23] |
| 6.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 6.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.12, 0.11] |
| 6.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 121 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.13, 0.10] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 23 | 4463 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| Analysis 1.7  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol | 12 | 2880 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.04, 0.00] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.3 Calcitriol | 5 | 339 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 7.4 Tacalcitol | 4 | 857 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.01, 0.02] |
| 7.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.08, 0.06] |
| 7.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 7.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.02, 0.08] |
| 7.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 121 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.01, 0.11] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 14 | 2752 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.05, 0.00] |
| Analysis 1.8  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol | 7 | 1770 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.08, 0.01] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Calcitriol | 4 | 281 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.12, 0.05] |
| 8.4 Tacalcitol | 1 | 314 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.11, 0.04] |
| 8.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 8.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.04] |
| 8.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 121 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.09, 0.02] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 19 | 4402 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.01, 0.02] |
| Analysis 1.9  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol | 11 | 2652 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.3 Calcitriol | 4 | 917 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.02] |
| 9.4 Tacalcitol | 2 | 566 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 9.5 Maxacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 9.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.06, 0.08] |
| 9.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 121 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [0.00, 0.19] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 14 | 2463 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Analysis 1.10  Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Calcipotriol | 8 | 1182 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Calcitriol | 3 | 647 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.4 Tacalcitol | 1 | 244 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 10.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 10.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 11 | 1904 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.00 [‐1.18, ‐0.82] |
| Analysis 2.1  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 2 | 739 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.81 [‐0.98, ‐0.64] |
| 1.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 4 | 537 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.35 [‐1.56, ‐1.15] |
| 1.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 74 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.41 [‐1.92, ‐0.90] |
| 1.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.6 Desonide | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.81 [‐1.34, ‐0.28] |
| 1.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.8 Fluticasone propionate | 2 | 383 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.93 [‐1.14, ‐0.72] |
| 1.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 95 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.75 [‐1.17, ‐0.34] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 7 | 611 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.77 [‐1.01, ‐0.52] |
| Analysis 2.2  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 1 | 93 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.74 [‐1.16, ‐0.32] |
| 2.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 33 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.77 [‐1.48, ‐0.06] |
| 2.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.95 [‐1.62, ‐0.27] |
| 2.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.09 [‐2.00, ‐0.18] |
| 2.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.6 Desonide | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.16 [‐1.70, ‐0.61] |
| 2.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 93 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.32 [‐0.73, 0.09] |
| 2.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 161 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.46 [‐0.77, ‐0.15] |
| 2.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 95 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.12 [‐1.55, ‐0.68] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 3 | 1158 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.97 [‐1.31, ‐0.62] |
| Analysis 2.3  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 2 | 739 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.79 [‐1.44, ‐0.14] |
| 3.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 419 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.21 [‐1.44, ‐0.97] |
| 3.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Desonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.10 Mometasone furoate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Desonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.10 Mometasone furoate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 15 | 2311 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.89 [‐1.06, ‐0.72] |
| Analysis 2.5  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 3 | 832 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.80 [‐0.96, ‐0.64] |
| 5.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 4 | 537 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.35 [‐1.56, ‐1.15] |
| 5.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.95 [‐1.62, ‐0.27] |
| 5.4 Betamethasone valerate | 2 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.33 [‐1.78, ‐0.89] |
| 5.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5.6 Desonide | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.81 [‐1.34, ‐0.28] |
| 5.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 93 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.32 [‐0.73, 0.09] |
| 5.8 Fluticasone propionate | 2 | 383 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.93 [‐1.14, ‐0.72] |
| 5.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 161 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.46 [‐0.77, ‐0.15] |
| 5.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 95 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.75 [‐1.17, ‐0.34] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 9 | 1673 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.14 [‐0.22, ‐0.05] |
| Analysis 2.6  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 2 | 756 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.16 [‐0.28, ‐0.04] |
| 6.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 421 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.12, 0.01] |
| 6.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 134 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐0.60, ‐0.30] |
| 6.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 6.5 Budesonide | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 6.6 Desonide | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.38, 0.02] |
| 6.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 180 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.09, 0.10] |
| 6.10 Mometasone furoate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 9 | 1292 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.02] |
| Analysis 2.7  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 1 | 633 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.11, ‐0.02] |
| 7.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 33 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 7.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 134 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.02, 0.17] |
| 7.5 Budesonide | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 7.6 Desonide | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.1 [‐0.24, 0.04] |
| 7.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 190 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.04] |
| 7.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.11, 0.01] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 6 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 2.8  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 130 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.46 [‐0.61, ‐0.31] |
| 8.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8.5 Budesonide | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 8.6 Desonide | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 8.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 190 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8.10 Mometasone furoate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 10 | 2117 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.08, ‐0.00] |
| Analysis 2.9  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 2 | 756 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.15, ‐0.04] |
| 9.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 2 | 454 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.12, 0.03] |
| 9.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 134 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 9.4 Betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.6 Desonide | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 9.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.8 Fluticasone propionate | 1 | 383 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 9.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 190 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.18, 0.07] |
| 9.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.23, 0.02] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 4 | 675 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Analysis 2.10  Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 421 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 134 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.07, 0.10] |
| 10.4 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Desonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.6 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.7 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.8 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.9 Betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 5 | 540 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.87 [‐2.38, ‐1.36] |
| Analysis 3.1  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Clobetasol propionate | 4 | 471 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.89 [‐2.53, ‐1.24] |
| 1.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.3 Halobetasol | 1 | 69 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.81 [‐2.37, ‐1.24] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 3 | 545 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.35 [‐1.80, ‐0.89] |
| Analysis 3.2  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Clobetasol propionate | 3 | 545 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.35 [‐1.80, ‐0.89] |
| 2.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.3 Halobetasol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.1 Clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Halobetasol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 3 | 487 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.22 [‐1.42, ‐1.02] |
| Analysis 3.4  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Clobetasol propionate | 1 | 79 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.01 [‐1.55, ‐0.47] |
| 4.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Halobetasol | 2 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.25 [‐1.46, ‐1.04] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 10 | 1493 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.56 [‐1.87, ‐1.26] |
| Analysis 3.5  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Clobetasol propionate | 7 | 1016 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.65 [‐2.10, ‐1.20] |
| 5.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5.3 Halobetasol | 3 | 477 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.36 [‐1.65, ‐1.07] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 8 | 1181 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.10, 0.01] |
| Analysis 3.6  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Clobetasol propionate | 7 | 1037 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.13, 0.01] |
| 6.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.3 Halobetasol | 1 | 144 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 10 | 1601 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Analysis 3.7  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Clobetasol propionate | 7 | 1037 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 7.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.3 Halobetasol | 3 | 564 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 8 | 1189 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| Analysis 3.8  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Clobetasol propionate | 6 | 845 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.01] |
| 8.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Halobetasol | 2 | 344 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 8 | 1265 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| Analysis 3.9  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Clobetasol propionate | 6 | 845 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 9.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.3 Halobetasol | 2 | 420 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 6 | 1056 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Analysis 3.10  Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Clobetasol propionate | 3 | 480 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Halcinonide | 1 | 156 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10.3 Halobetasol | 2 | 420 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 3 | 94 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.06 [‐1.66, ‐0.46] |
| Analysis 4.2  Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 3 PASI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 3 | 94 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.06 [‐1.66, ‐0.46] |
| Analysis 4.5  Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 4 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| Analysis 4.6  Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | 104 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| Analysis 4.7  Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 2 | 44 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| Analysis 4.8  Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 3 | 94 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.26 [‐0.30, 0.82] |
| Analysis 4.9  Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.35, 0.35] |
| Analysis 4.10  Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 5 | 2264 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.44 [‐1.76, ‐1.12] |
| Analysis 5.1  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1416 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.21 [‐1.50, ‐0.91] |
| 1.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 848 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.90 [‐2.09, ‐1.71] |
| 2 TSS | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 5 | 2263 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.24 [‐1.53, ‐0.95] |
| Analysis 5.3  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1414 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.14 [‐1.57, ‐0.70] |
| 3.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 849 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.41 [‐1.86, ‐0.97] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 5.4  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 5 | 2264 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.44 [‐1.76, ‐1.12] |
| Analysis 5.5  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1416 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.21 [‐1.50, ‐0.91] |
| 5.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 848 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.90 [‐2.09, ‐1.71] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 5 | 2340 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.17, ‐0.07] |
| Analysis 5.6  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1483 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.22, ‐0.09] |
| 6.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 857 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.12, ‐0.03] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | 1723 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.11, ‐0.04] |
| Analysis 5.7  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 3 | 1280 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.11, ‐0.03] |
| 7.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 1 | 443 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.14, ‐0.05] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 1 | 802 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.12, ‐0.06] |
| Analysis 5.8  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 1 | 359 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.13, ‐0.05] |
| 8.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 1 | 443 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.13, ‐0.05] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 5 | 2334 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.08, ‐0.02] |
| Analysis 5.9  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1479 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.11, ‐0.02] |
| 9.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 855 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.08, 0.01] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | 412 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Analysis 5.10  Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 1 | 412 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 8 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 6.1  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.24 Tar | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.25 Tazarotene | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 17 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 6.2  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | 89 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.70 [‐1.13, ‐0.27] |
| 2.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.48 [‐0.81, ‐0.15] |
| 2.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.05 [‐1.64, ‐0.46] |
| 2.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.13 [‐1.91, ‐0.35] |
| 2.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 88 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.64 [‐2.13, ‐1.15] |
| 2.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 24 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.33 [‐0.48, 1.14] |
| 2.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 82 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.48 [‐0.92, ‐0.04] |
| 2.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.44 [‐2.67, ‐0.22] |
| 2.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.60, 0.75] |
| 2.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.20 [‐0.60, 0.20] |
| 2.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 1 | 42 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.77 [‐1.40, ‐0.14] |
| 2.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.59, 0.85] |
| 2.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.31 [‐3.26, ‐1.36] |
| 2.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 1 | 44 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.39 [‐0.98, 0.21] |
| 2.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 47 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [‐0.52, 0.63] |
| 2.24 Tar | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐1.11, 0.22] |
| 2.25 Tazarotene | 1 | 318 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.11, ‐0.62] |
| 2.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 6.3  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion, 30% | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.11 Kukui nut oil, twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.24 Tar | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.25 Tazarotene | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 6.4  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion, 30% | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.13 Methotrexate gel | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.24 Tar | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.25 Tazarotene | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 6.5  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.58 [‐2.16, ‐0.99] |
| 5.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | 89 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.59 [‐1.01, ‐0.16] |
| 5.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 81 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.76 [‐1.21, ‐0.31] |
| 5.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.39 [‐0.84, 0.06] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.48 [‐0.81, ‐0.15] |
| 5.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion, 30% | 1 | 19 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.57 [‐0.36, 1.51] |
| 5.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.05 [‐1.64, ‐0.46] |
| 5.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 1 | 24 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.96 [‐4.19, ‐1.74] |
| 5.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.62 [‐1.35, 0.12] |
| 5.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 88 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.09 [‐2.62, ‐1.56] |
| 5.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 24 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.80, 0.80] |
| 5.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 1 | 200 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.77 [‐1.06, ‐0.48] |
| 5.13 Methotrexate gel | 2 | 142 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.05 [‐2.04, ‐0.06] |
| 5.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.44 [‐2.67, ‐0.22] |
| 5.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.60, 0.75] |
| 5.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.20 [‐0.60, 0.20] |
| 5.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 1 | 42 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.63, 0.58] |
| 5.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | 80 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.50, 0.37] |
| 5.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.59, 0.85] |
| 5.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.31 [‐3.26, ‐1.36] |
| 5.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 1 | 44 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.39 [‐0.98, 0.21] |
| 5.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 47 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [‐0.52, 0.63] |
| 5.24 Tar | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐1.11, 0.22] |
| 5.25 Tazarotene | 1 | 318 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.11, ‐0.62] |
| 5.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.87 [‐4.13, ‐1.62] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 23 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 6.6  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 6.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.12, 0.08] |
| 6.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 6.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 6.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.08] |
| 6.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.25 [‐0.06, 0.56] |
| 6.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 6.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 6.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 112 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.15, 0.15] |
| 6.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.13 [‐0.42, 0.15] |
| 6.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 1 | 200 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.23 [‐0.32, ‐0.14] |
| 6.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 6.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 6.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 6.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08] |
| 6.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.16 [‐0.04, 0.36] |
| 6.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 1 | 146 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.15, 0.15] |
| 6.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | 104 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 6.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 6.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 6.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.25 Tazarotene | 2 | 1627 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.01, 0.09] |
| 6.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 19 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 6.7  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 7.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.07, 0.06] |
| 7.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 7.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.18, 0.35] |
| 7.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 7.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 7.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 112 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 7.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 7.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 7.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 7.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 7.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 1 | 146 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 7.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.25 Tazarotene | 2 | 1627 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.05, 0.10] |
| 7.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 18 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 6.8  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 8.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08] |
| 8.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.12, 0.29] |
| 8.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 8.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 8.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.13, 0.13] |
| 8.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 8.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 8.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 8.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 8.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 8.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 8.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 1 | 146 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 8.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.25 Tazarotene | 2 | 1627 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.04, 0.01] |
| 8.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 21 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 6.9  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 9.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | 92 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.10, 0.14] |
| 9.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.07, 0.06] |
| 9.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.03, 0.13] |
| 9.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.02, 0.27] |
| 9.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.18, 0.35] |
| 9.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.06, 0.14] |
| 9.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.44, 0.27] |
| 9.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.06, 0.33] |
| 9.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 88 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 9.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 9.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 1 | 200 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.02] |
| 9.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 9.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 9.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 9.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.07, 0.28] |
| 9.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.06, 0.14] |
| 9.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 1 | 146 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.05] |
| 9.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | 104 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.19, 0.19] |
| 9.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 9.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.25 Tazarotene | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 12 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 6.10  Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 10.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 10.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 88 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 10.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.13 Methotrexate gel | 2 | 166 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 10.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 10.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | 104 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 10.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 10.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.25 Tazarotene | 2 | 414 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 8 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 7.1  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1728 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [0.28, 0.58] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 412 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.21, 0.17] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 256 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.02, 0.52] |
| 1.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 99 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.58 [‐0.99, ‐0.18] |
| 1.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.21 [‐0.04, 0.45] |
| 1.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.91, 0.53] |
| 1.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 6 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 7.2  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 684 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.26 [‐0.41, ‐0.11] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 256 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.40 [0.15, 0.65] |
| 2.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 89 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.50 [‐0.92, ‐0.07] |
| 2.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.02, 0.51] |
| 2.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 148 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [0.09, 0.74] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 7.3  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1728 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.36 [0.22, 0.51] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 4 | 1505 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.22, ‐0.02] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.15 [‐0.73, 1.02] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.39 [0.14, 0.63] |
| 3.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 2 | 1080 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.26 [‐0.38, ‐0.14] |
| Analysis 7.4  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 1080 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.26 [‐0.38, ‐0.14] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 14 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 7.5  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1728 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [0.28, 0.58] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 4 | 1557 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.26, 0.02] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.15 [‐0.73, 1.02] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 256 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.02, 0.52] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 99 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.58 [‐0.99, ‐0.18] |
| 5.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.21 [‐0.04, 0.45] |
| 5.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.91, 0.53] |
| 5.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 148 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [0.09, 0.74] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 11 | 3995 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [0.00, 0.03] |
| Analysis 7.6  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1739 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [0.01, 0.06] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 3 | 1520 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.01, 0.04] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 268 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 6.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.08, 0.03] |
| 6.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.10, 0.23] |
| 6.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 180 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 9 | 3058 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.00, 0.01] |
| Analysis 7.7  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 956 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [0.00, 0.04] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 3 | 1520 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.00, 0.01] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.03] |
| 7.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.03] |
| 7.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.10, 0.23] |
| 7.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 180 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 5 | 1500 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Analysis 7.8  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 1099 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 113 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05] |
| 8.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 8.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 9 | 3778 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.02, 0.11] |
| Analysis 7.9  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1739 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.04, 0.09] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 3 | 1516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.12 [‐0.02, 0.26] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 113 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.02, 0.22] |
| 9.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.05, 0.06] |
| 9.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 152 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.07, 0.04] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 6 | 2547 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| Analysis 7.10  Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 621 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 3 | 1516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.04, 0.03] |
| 10.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 152 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 8.1  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 TSS | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 8.3  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 8.4  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 2 | 82 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.57, 0.44] |
| Analysis 8.5  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 2 | 82 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.57, 0.44] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 8.6  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 8.7  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 8.8  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 8.9  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 8.10  Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 4 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 9.1  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1926 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.40 [‐0.52, ‐0.27] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.69 [‐1.22, ‐0.15] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 9.2  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 3 | 1876 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.44 [‐0.55, ‐0.33] |
| Analysis 9.3  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1876 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.44 [‐0.55, ‐0.33] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 9.4  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 9.5  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1926 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.40 [‐0.52, ‐0.27] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 122 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.45 [0.09, 0.81] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.69 [‐1.22, ‐0.15] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 5 | 2135 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| Analysis 9.6  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1948 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 122 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 65 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 9.7  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 2 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 9.8  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 9.9  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1946 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.00, 0.04] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 122 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.13, 0.06] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 9.10  Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 10.1  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 4 | 994 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.43 [‐0.85, ‐0.01] |
| 1.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.51 [0.13, 0.88] |
| 1.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 4 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 10.2  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 2 | 210 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.54 [‐1.16, 0.08] |
| 2.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.24, 0.50] |
| 2.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | 84 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.60, 0.25] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 10.3  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 3 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 10.4  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 2 | 544 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.90, 0.80] |
| 4.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 8 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 10.5  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 6 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 7 | 615 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.01] |
| Analysis 10.6  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 5 | 417 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.07, 0.04] |
| 6.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.25, 0.06] |
| 6.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | 84 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.16, 0.11] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 7 | 1265 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.06, ‐0.00] |
| Analysis 10.7  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 6 | 1151 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.06, 0.00] |
| 7.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.13, 0.02] |
| 7.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 5 | 788 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| Analysis 10.8  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 4 | 674 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.08, 0.04] |
| 8.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 9 | 1543 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.32 [‐0.43, ‐0.20] |
| Analysis 10.9  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 7 | 1345 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.25 [‐0.32, ‐0.17] |
| 9.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.67 [‐0.80, ‐0.54] |
| 9.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | 84 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.36 [‐0.52, ‐0.20] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 4 | 746 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Analysis 10.10  Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 2 | 548 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | 84 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 3 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 11.1  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 246 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.25, 0.25] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 226 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.47 [‐0.73, ‐0.21] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 52 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [‐0.12, 0.98] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 3 | 589 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.31 [‐0.55, ‐0.06] |
| Analysis 11.2  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 250 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.32 [‐0.57, ‐0.07] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 287 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐0.68, ‐0.22] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 52 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.41, 0.68] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 11.3  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 11.4  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 4 | 539 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.62, 0.27] |
| Analysis 11.5  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 2 | 261 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.41 [‐1.46, 0.64] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 226 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.47 [‐0.73, ‐0.21] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 52 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [‐0.12, 0.98] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 3 | 334 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08] |
| Analysis 11.6  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 2 | 274 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.09] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | 334 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.01, 0.06] |
| Analysis 11.7  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 2 | 274 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.07] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 3 | 334 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| Analysis 11.8  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 2 | 274 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.08, 0.07] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 2 | 537 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.05, 0.12] |
| Analysis 11.9  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 250 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.01, 0.14] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 287 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.09, 0.07] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 3 | 597 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Analysis 11.10  Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 250 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 287 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 11 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 12.1  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 1 | 154 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.56 [0.23, 0.88] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 2 | 1194 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.31, 1.02] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 377 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.06, 0.48] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 3 | 1804 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.40, 0.93] |
| 1.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 2 | 510 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [‐0.19, 0.74] |
| 1.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 1 | 344 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.05, 0.48] |
| 1.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.88 [0.34, 1.42] |
| 1.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.14 [‐0.06, 0.33] |
| 1.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 334 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.48 [0.26, 0.70] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 12.2  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 16 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 12.3  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 1 | 124 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.46 [0.10, 0.82] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 2 | 1191 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.67 [0.23, 1.11] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 4 | 1204 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.52 [0.38, 0.67] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 3 | 1744 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.64 [0.46, 0.83] |
| 3.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 2 | 515 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [‐0.07, 0.93] |
| 3.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 1 | 344 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.17 [‐0.04, 0.38] |
| 3.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 1 | 116 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.29, 0.44] |
| 3.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.53 [‐0.11, 1.18] |
| 3.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.11, 0.28] |
| 3.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 1 | 142 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [‐0.09, 0.57] |
| 3.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 334 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.47 [0.25, 0.69] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 2 | 399 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.49 [0.29, 0.69] |
| Analysis 12.4  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.70 [0.16, 1.23] |
| 4.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 334 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.46 [0.24, 0.68] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 17 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 12.5  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 1 | 154 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.56 [0.23, 0.88] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 2 | 1194 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.31, 1.02] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 4 | 1204 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [0.20, 0.66] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 3 | 1804 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.40, 0.93] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 2 | 510 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [‐0.19, 0.74] |
| 5.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 1 | 344 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.05, 0.48] |
| 5.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.88 [0.34, 1.42] |
| 5.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 1 | 116 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.29, 0.44] |
| 5.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.53 [‐0.11, 1.18] |
| 5.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.14 [‐0.06, 0.33] |
| 5.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 1 | 142 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [‐0.09, 0.57] |
| 5.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 334 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.48 [0.26, 0.70] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 15 | 5494 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [0.02, 0.05] |
| Analysis 12.6  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Talcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 13 | 4985 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [0.01, 0.05] |
| 6.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 142 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.08, 0.10] |
| 6.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 367 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.01, 0.11] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 13 | 4081 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [0.01, 0.03] |
| Analysis 12.7  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 11 | 3572 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [0.01, 0.03] |
| 7.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 142 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.02, 0.07] |
| 7.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 367 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.03] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 7 | 1925 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.00, 0.02] |
| Analysis 12.8  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 7 | 1925 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.00, 0.02] |
| 8.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 15 | 5581 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.05, 0.08] |
| Analysis 12.9  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 13 | 5084 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.04, 0.08] |
| 9.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 131 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [0.02, 0.19] |
| 9.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 366 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.02, 0.15] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 6 | 2099 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| Analysis 12.10  Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 5 | 1968 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 131 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 7 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.1  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 577 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.29, 0.04] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 585 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.04, 0.29] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 92 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.60 [0.18, 1.02] |
| 1.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2wks) | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [‐0.05, 0.86] |
| 1.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.54, 0.16] |
| 1.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.12, 0.41] |
| 1.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.51 [0.37, 0.66] |
| 1.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.26 [0.11, 0.40] |
| 1.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 596 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [0.08, 0.40] |
| 1.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 493 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.54 [0.36, 0.72] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.2  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 92 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.63 [0.21, 1.05] |
| 2.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 8 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.3  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 649 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.19, 0.11] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 143 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.29 [‐0.04, 0.62] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 650 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.05, 0.25] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.01, 1.32] |
| 3.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.13 [0.64, 1.62] |
| 3.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.27 [‐0.62, 0.09] |
| 3.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.25 [0.10, 0.39] |
| 3.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.59 [0.45, 0.74] |
| 3.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.30 [0.16, 0.45] |
| 3.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 645 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.15 [‐0.01, 0.30] |
| 3.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.49 [0.31, 0.67] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 4 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.4  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 577 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.14 [‐0.30, 0.02] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 585 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.06, 0.26] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.28 [0.13, 0.42] |
| 4.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.71 [0.56, 0.85] |
| 4.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.44 [0.29, 0.58] |
| 4.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 596 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.23 [0.07, 0.39] |
| 4.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 493 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.54 [0.36, 0.72] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.5  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 577 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.29, 0.04] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 143 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.29 [‐0.04, 0.62] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 585 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.04, 0.29] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 92 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.60 [0.18, 1.02] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.01, 1.32] |
| 5.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [‐0.05, 0.86] |
| 5.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.54, 0.16] |
| 5.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.12, 0.41] |
| 5.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.51 [0.37, 0.66] |
| 5.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.26 [0.11, 0.40] |
| 5.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 596 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [0.08, 0.40] |
| 5.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 493 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.54 [0.36, 0.72] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 9 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.6  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 649 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [0.00, 0.10] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.09, 0.17] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 649 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [0.03, 0.13] |
| 6.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 98 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 6.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10] |
| 6.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 6.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.12, 0.11] |
| 6.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [0.03, 0.14] |
| 6.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.06, 0.17] |
| 6.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.07] |
| 6.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 644 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.07] |
| 6.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.01, 0.12] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 8 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.7  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.09, 0.01] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 98 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10] |
| 7.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 7.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.03] |
| 7.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.01, 0.02] |
| 7.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 7.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.01] |
| 7.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.01, 0.05] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 6 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.8  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.21 [0.10, 0.33] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 98 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 8.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10] |
| 8.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.04, 0.10] |
| 8.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [0.02, 0.08] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 8 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 13.9  Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 649 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.06, 0.17] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 649 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.05, 0.17] |
| 9.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 98 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.08, 0.12] |
| 9.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 9.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.26 [0.07, 0.45] |
| 9.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.10, 0.06] |
| 9.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 752 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.07, 0.02] |
| 9.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 743 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05] |
| 9.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 749 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.00, 0.08] |
| 9.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 644 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.04] |
| 9.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.01, 0.11] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 14.1  Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 TSS | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 14.5  Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 14.6  Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 6.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 6.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 14.7  Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 14.8  Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 14.9  Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 10.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 10 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.1  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 3 | 139 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.53 [‐1.74, 0.68] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 209 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.59 [‐0.87, ‐0.31] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 200 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.33, 0.22] |
| 1.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.7 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.8 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.22 [‐0.60, 0.16] |
| 1.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.55 [‐1.33, 0.24] |
| 1.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 2 | 728 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.24 [‐0.38, ‐0.09] |
| 1.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 7 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.2  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 132 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.51 [‐0.86, ‐0.16] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.49, 0.31] |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol+nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.19 [‐0.14, 0.52] |
| 2.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 2 | 171 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.35 [‐1.51, 0.81] |
| 2.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 199 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.33, 0.23] |
| 2.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 2 | 247 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐2.04, 1.68] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.3  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 2 | 109 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐1.54, 1.35] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 87 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.63 [‐1.06, ‐0.20] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.36, 0.26] |
| 3.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 27 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.24 [‐3.23, ‐1.25] |
| 3.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.78, 0.75] |
| 3.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 989 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.25, 0.00] |
| 3.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 6 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.4  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 1 | 54 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.51 [‐2.12, ‐0.90] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 87 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.56 [‐0.99, ‐0.13] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 186 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.49 [‐0.79, ‐0.20] |
| 4.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.13 [‐0.51, 0.24] |
| 4.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.35 [‐0.99, 0.29] |
| 4.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.55 [‐1.33, 0.24] |
| 4.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 19 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.5  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 3 | 139 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.53 [‐1.74, 0.68] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 209 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.59 [‐0.87, ‐0.31] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.49, 0.31] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.19 [‐0.14, 0.52] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 2 | 360 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.26, 0.15] |
| 5.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 27 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.24 [‐3.23, ‐1.25] |
| 5.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 2 | 171 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.55 [‐1.28, 0.17] |
| 5.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 2 | 237 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.35, 0.16] |
| 5.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.55 [‐1.33, 0.24] |
| 5.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 988 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.20 [‐0.32, ‐0.07] |
| 5.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 2 | 247 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐2.04, 1.68] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 15 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.6  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 2 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.12, 0.08] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 220 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.10, 0.04] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.05, 0.09] |
| 6.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.06, 0.07] |
| 6.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.09, 0.17] |
| 6.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.16, 0.30] |
| 6.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.13 [‐0.25, ‐0.01] |
| 6.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 2 | 254 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.10, 0.01] |
| 6.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.15, 0.08] |
| 6.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 6.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 1001 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05] |
| 6.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 15 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.7  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 2 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.04, 0.06] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 210 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.03] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.00, 0.10] |
| 7.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.16, 0.30] |
| 7.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.08, 0.11] |
| 7.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 2 | 254 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.16, 0.05] |
| 7.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.10, 0.07] |
| 7.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 7.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 998 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.01, 0.02] |
| 7.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 12 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.8  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 88 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.06, 0.07] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 8.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.02] |
| 8.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.25, 0.11] |
| 8.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.03] |
| 8.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 208 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 8.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 998 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 11 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.9  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 2 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.06, 0.10] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 122 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [‐0.09, 0.20] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.32, 0.03] |
| 9.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.30, ‐0.03] |
| 9.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.02, 0.15] |
| 9.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.25, 0.11] |
| 9.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.37, ‐0.01] |
| 9.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 204 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.11, 0.06] |
| 9.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.23 [‐0.06, 0.52] |
| 9.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 2 | 731 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.06, 0.05] |
| 9.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 8 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 15.10  Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 88 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.13, 0.13] |
| 10.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 10.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 183 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.03] |
| 10.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 1 | 264 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 16.1  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 16.2  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 16.3  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 16.4  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 1 | 47 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.65 [‐1.24, ‐0.06] |
| 4.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 16.5  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.83 [‐3.79, ‐1.88] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.08 [‐1.77, ‐0.40] |
| 5.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 2 | 86 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.30, ‐0.41] |
| 5.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 16.6  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.08, 0.28] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 6.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 2 | 97 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.16, 0.04] |
| 6.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | 167 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.30, ‐0.03] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 16.7  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 2 | 97 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 7.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | 167 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.03] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 16.8  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.18, 0.08] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.18, 0.08] |
| 8.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 2 | 97 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.13, 0.04] |
| 8.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | 167 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.11 [‐0.19, ‐0.02] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 16.9  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.18, 0.08] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.11, 0.21] |
| 9.3 Pimecrolimus cream 1%, OD/twice daily | 2 | 97 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.15, 0.31] |
| 9.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | 167 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.30, ‐0.03] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| Analysis 16.10  Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.3 Pimecrolimus cream 1%, OD/twice daily | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 17.1  Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.30 [0.11, 0.50] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 49 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.42 [‐0.15, 0.98] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 17.2  Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.61 [0.28, 0.94] |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 49 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.29 [‐0.27, 0.85] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 17.3  Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 3 PASI. | ||||
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 2.02 [1.20, 2.84] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.32 [0.12, 0.51] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 39 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.53 [‐1.17, 0.11] |
| 3.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 4 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 17.5  Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 2.02 [1.20, 2.84] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.30 [0.11, 0.50] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.61 [0.28, 0.94] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 39 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.53 [‐1.17, 0.11] |
| 5.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 49 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.42 [‐0.15, 0.98] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 17.6  Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.28, 0.08] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.03, 0.11] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 6.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.08, 0.18] |
| 6.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.12 [‐0.02, 0.26] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 17.7  Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.02, 0.11] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.01, 0.18] |
| 7.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 17.8  Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.01, 0.05] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 8.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 17.9  Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.05, 0.25] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 404 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.15 [0.08, 0.23] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.02, 0.17] |
| 9.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.38, 0.08] |
| 9.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.1  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 457 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.72 [‐1.28, ‐0.16] |
| 1.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 712 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.09 [‐1.29, ‐0.90] |
| 1.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 132 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.42 [‐1.80, ‐1.04] |
| 1.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 2 | 458 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.73 [‐1.99, ‐1.48] |
| 1.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 54 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.11 [‐1.69, ‐0.53] |
| 1.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 854 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.97 [‐1.61, ‐0.32] |
| 1.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.48 [‐2.50, ‐0.47] |
| 1.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 84 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.22 [‐1.69, ‐0.76] |
| 1.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.79, 0.06] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 11 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.2  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 457 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.44 [‐0.64, ‐0.25] |
| 2.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 712 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.00 [‐1.19, ‐0.81] |
| 2.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 1 | 172 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.40 [‐1.75, ‐1.05] |
| 2.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 126 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.58 [‐1.98, ‐1.18] |
| 2.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 3 | 707 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.53 [‐1.77, ‐1.28] |
| 2.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 854 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.92 [‐1.42, ‐0.43] |
| 2.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.15 [‐2.11, ‐0.19] |
| 2.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 37 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.82, 0.68] |
| 2.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 84 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.89 [‐1.34, ‐0.44] |
| 2.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.57 [‐1.47, 0.32] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.4  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 450 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.66 [‐1.28, ‐0.05] |
| 4.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 685 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.23 [‐1.43, ‐1.03] |
| 4.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 132 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.97 [‐1.33, ‐0.61] |
| 4.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 841 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.00 [‐1.79, ‐0.22] |
| 4.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 37 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.11 [‐0.86, 0.64] |
| 4.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 13 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.5  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 457 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.72 [‐1.28, ‐0.16] |
| 5.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 712 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.09 [‐1.29, ‐0.90] |
| 5.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 1 | 172 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.40 [‐1.75, ‐1.05] |
| 5.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 132 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.42 [‐1.80, ‐1.04] |
| 5.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 4 | 788 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.57 [‐1.81, ‐1.34] |
| 5.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 54 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.11 [‐1.69, ‐0.53] |
| 5.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 854 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.97 [‐1.61, ‐0.32] |
| 5.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.48 [‐2.50, ‐0.47] |
| 5.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 37 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.82, 0.68] |
| 5.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 84 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.22 [‐1.69, ‐0.76] |
| 5.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.79, 0.06] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 13 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.6  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 3 | 517 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.08, 0.05] |
| 6.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 692 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.14 [‐0.21, ‐0.06] |
| 6.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 165 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 6.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 5 | 1006 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.10, 0.04] |
| 6.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 58 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.13, 0.13] |
| 6.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 854 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.16, ‐0.03] |
| 6.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.38, 0.09] |
| 6.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 89 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.13, 0.04] |
| 6.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 13 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.7  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 3 | 517 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.02, 0.05] |
| 7.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 712 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.08, ‐0.00] |
| 7.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 1 | 172 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 165 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.04] |
| 7.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 5 | 1006 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 7.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 58 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 7.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 1 | 677 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.08, 0.00] |
| 7.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 7.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.42, 0.05] |
| 7.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 9 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.8  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 457 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.11, 0.00] |
| 8.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 692 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.16, ‐0.05] |
| 8.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 165 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.02] |
| 8.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 5 | 1006 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.02] |
| 8.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 1 | 677 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.11 [‐0.17, ‐0.06] |
| 8.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.28, 0.10] |
| 8.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 12 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.9  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 3 | 510 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.05, 0.04] |
| 9.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 703 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.13, ‐0.01] |
| 9.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 4 | 817 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.03, 0.04] |
| 9.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 58 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.12, 0.06] |
| 9.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 831 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.13, 0.02] |
| 9.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 9.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.24, 0.13] |
| 9.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 89 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08] |
| 9.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 18.10  Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 1 | 408 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 692 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 2 | 385 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.02] |
| 10.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 843 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.1  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 1 IAGI. | ||||
| 1.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.48 [0.32, 0.64] |
| 1.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 510 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.37 [0.20, 0.55] |
| 1.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.26, ‐0.10] |
| 1.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2581 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.64 [0.44, 0.84] |
| 1.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 748 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.24 [‐0.73, 0.25] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 10 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.2  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 2 TSS. | ||||
| 2.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.45 [0.28, 0.63] |
| 2.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 487 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [‐0.09, 0.27] |
| 2.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 151 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.37 [0.05, 0.69] |
| 2.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.27, ‐0.11] |
| 2.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 3 | 1978 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.70 [0.56, 0.84] |
| 2.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 3 | 925 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.30 [‐0.84, 0.24] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.4  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 4 PAGI. | ||||
| 4.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1654 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.56 [0.31, 0.81] |
| 4.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 468 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [0.22, 0.59] |
| 4.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2414 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.25, ‐0.09] |
| 4.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 3 | 1952 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.84 [0.61, 1.08] |
| 4.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 11 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.5  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI). | ||||
| 5.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.48 [0.32, 0.64] |
| 5.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 510 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.37 [0.20, 0.55] |
| 5.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 151 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.37 [0.05, 0.69] |
| 5.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.26, ‐0.10] |
| 5.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2581 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.64 [0.44, 0.84] |
| 5.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 3 | 835 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐0.92, 0.02] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 10 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.6  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals. | ||||
| 6.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.04, 0.18] |
| 6.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.00, 0.08] |
| 6.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 2 | 194 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.07, 0.18] |
| 6.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.04, 0.06] |
| 6.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2847 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.05, 0.18] |
| 6.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 475 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.07, 0.09] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 10 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.7  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events. | ||||
| 7.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.01, 0.09] |
| 7.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [0.01, 0.06] |
| 7.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 2 | 194 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.05, 0.15] |
| 7.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 7.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2847 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.02, 0.09] |
| 7.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 445 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [0.02, 0.14] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 8 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.8  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure. | ||||
| 8.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.07] |
| 8.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.01, 0.03] |
| 8.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 2 | 194 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.04] |
| 8.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.02, ‐0.00] |
| 8.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 3 | 2535 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [0.01, 0.10] |
| 8.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 10 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.9  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local). | ||||
| 9.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1652 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.04, 0.11] |
| 9.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.17 [0.01, 0.33] |
| 9.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 2 | 194 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.19 [0.10, 0.28] |
| 9.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2415 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 9.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2801 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.06, 0.12] |
| 9.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 445 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [0.15, 0.33] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 6 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| Analysis 19.10  Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic). | ||||
| 10.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1666 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 474 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 151 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 2 | 2216 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 3 | 1970 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 445 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
Chronic plaque psoriasis
Source: Dermis Dermatology Atlas Online (used with permission)
The epidermis in the skin of people with and without psoriasis
Risk of bias graph: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.
Forest plot of comparison: 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination vs. other treatments: complex regimens, outcome: 13.5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Forest plot of comparison: 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination vs. other treatment: long term studies (>24wks), outcome: 14.5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Forest plot of comparison: 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, outcome: 18.5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 1 Vitamin D analogues versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 2 Corticosteroid (potent) versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 3 Corticosteroid (very potent) versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 4 Dithranol versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 5 Vitamin D combination products versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 6 Other treatment versus placebo, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 7 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (potent), Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 8 Vitamin D analogues versus corticosteroid (very potent), Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 9 Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid versus corticosteroid, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 10 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus dithranol, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 11 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other vitamin D analogue, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 12 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus vitamin D + corticosteroid, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 13 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments: complex regimens, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 14 Vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks), Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 15 Vitamin D analogues versus other treatment, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 16 Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 3 PASI.
Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 17 Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatment, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 18 Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 1 IAGI.
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 2 TSS.
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 4 PAGI.
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI).
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 6 Total withdrawals.
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events.
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure.
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 9 Adverse events (local).
Comparison 19 Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination versus other treatments, Outcome 10 Adverse events (systemic).
| Acronym | Full name |
| BC | baseline comparability demonstrated (clinical/demographic) |
| BD | twice daily |
| BMD | betamethasone dipropionate |
| BMV | betamethasone valerate |
| BSA | Body Surface Area |
| Btw‐patient | Between‐patient |
| CI | confidence interval |
| dys | days |
| EQ‐5D | EuroQOL |
| FU | follow up (includes treatment period) |
| I² | heterogeneity statistic |
| IAGI | Investigator Assessment of Global Improvement (change score) |
| IGA | Investigator Global Assessment (static score) |
| IQR | interquartile range |
| ISGA | Investigator's Static Global Assessment Score |
| LAE | local adverse effects |
| LCD | liquor carbonis distillate |
| LF | loss to follow up (per cent of participants randomised, not contributing to primary outcome measure) |
| MEMS | Medication Event Monitoring System |
| mPASI | modified Psoriasis Area Severity Index |
| NA | not available/not applicable |
| NR | not reported |
| OD | once daily |
| OM | once in the morning |
| ON | once at night |
| ODS | overall disease severity |
| PAGI | Patient Assessment of Global Improvement (change score) |
| PASI | Psoriasis Area Severity Index |
| PDI | Psoriasis Disability Index |
| PGA | Patient Global Assessment (static score) |
| PMAQ‐3w | Medication Adherence Questionnaire, version 3W |
| pt | point |
| QOL | quality of life |
| RD | risk difference |
| SD | standard deviation |
| SMD | standardised mean difference |
| TCP | two‐compound product |
| TD | three times daily |
| TLPSS | Total Local Psoriasis Severity Score |
| TSS | Total Severity Score/total sum score |
| UV | ultra violet |
| VDRE | Vitamin D‐Responsive Element |
| wks | weeks |
| yrs | years |
| Outcome | Acronym | Construct | Scale, minimum | Scale, maximum | Notes |
| * Investigator's Assessment of Overall Global Improvement | IAGI | Improvement from baseline variably defined. Common taxonomy ranges from worse to cleared | 4‐pt | 7‐pt | Calculated means and standard deviations by assigning zero to 'worse' (or equivalent). Higher scores indicate greater improvement |
| Investigator's Global Assessment of Disease Severity | IGA | Static equivalent of the IAGI | 4‐pt | 7‐pt | Calculated means and standard deviations by assigning zero to 'clear' (or equivalent). Higher scores indicate more severe disease |
| Total Severity Score | TSS | Redness (erythema), thickness (infiltration) and scaling (sometimes also itching (pruritis)) of target plaque(s). Scored separately then summed | 0 to 3 | 0 to 24 | Also known as the Local Psoriasis Severity Index or the Total Sum Score. Higher scores indicate more severe disease |
| Psoriasis Area and Severity Index | PASI | Redness, thickness, and scaliness of the lesions (each graded on a 0 to 4 scale), weighted by the area of involvement (0 to 6) and summed | 0 to 68 (without head) | 0 to 72 (including head) | Higher scores indicate more severe disease |
| * Patient's Assessment of Overall Global Improvement | PAGI | Assessed as IAGI | 4‐pt | 7‐pt | Less often reported than IAGI. Majority of included trials use 5‐pt scale |
| Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Severity | PGA | Assessed as IGA | 4‐pt | 5‐pt | Rarely reported (5/177 studies) |
| * IAGI/PAGI data are entered as a negative values; thus, a reduction denotes a positive improvement for the active treatment consistent with TSS and PASI measures. | |||||
| Type of study/score | Placebo IAGI (change)/IGA (end point) | Placebo TSS | Placebo PASI | Placebo PAGI (change)/PGA (end point) | H2H IAGI (change)/IGA (end point) | H2H TSS | H2H PASI | H2H PAGI (change)/PGA (end point) |
| Between‐patient (end point) | 0.93 | 1.33 | 3.76 | 1.13 | 1.01 | 1.65 | 3.61 | 1.12 |
| Within‐patient (end point) | 1.08 | 1.49 | 7.17 | NA | NA | 1.50 | 2.58 | NA |
| Between‐patient (change) | 1.17 | 1.52 | 5.75 | 1.31 | 1.10 | 1.73 | 7.85 | 1.20 |
| Within‐patient (change) | 1.02 | 1.58 | NA | 1.53 | 0.96 | 1.94 | NA | 0.83 |
| Within‐patient (% change) | NA | 0.18 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Between‐patient (% change) | NA | NA | 0.37 | NA | NA | 0.13 | 0.33 | NA |
| Scalp between‐patient (end point) | 1.08 | 1.74 | NA | 1.06 | 1.06 | 1.94 | NA | 1.18 |
| Scalp within‐patient (end point) | 1.33 | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA |
| Scalp between‐patient (change) | 1.20 | NA | NA | 1.28 | 1.30 | 1.75 | NA | 1.20 |
| Scalp between‐patient (% change) | NA | NA | NA | NA | NA | 0.25 | NA | NA |
| NA: not available; H2H: head‐to‐head; IGA [PGA]: Investigator [Patient] Global Assessment of Disease Severity; IAGI [PAGI]: Investigator (patient) Assessment of Global Improvement; TSS: Total Severity Score; PASI: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index | ||||||||
| Comparison No. | Comparison Label | No. studies | Per cent studies with | No. |
| 01 | Vitamin D analogues vs. placebo | 30 | 60% | 4986 |
| 02 | Corticosteroid (potent) vs. placebo | 13 | 85% | 2216 |
| 03 | Corticosteroid (very potent) vs. placebo | 10 | 70% | 1264 |
| 04 | Dithranol vs. placebo | 3 | 0% | 47 |
| 05 | Vitamin D combination products vs. placebo | 5 | 100% | 2058 |
| 06 | Other treatment vs. placebo | 26 | 46% | 1450 |
| 07 | Vitamin D analogues vs. corticosteroid (potent) | 14 | 64% | 3542 |
| 08 | Vitamin D analogues vs. corticosteroid (very potent) | 2 | 100% | 82 |
| 09 | Vitamin D combined with corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid | 5 | 100% | 2113 |
| 10 | Vitamin D alone or in combination vs. dithranol | 8 | 88% | 1284 |
| 11 | Vitamin D alone or in combination vs. other vitamin D analogue | 4 | 75% | 513 |
| 12 | Vitamin D alone or in combination vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid | 17 | 94% | 5856 |
| 13 | Vitamin D alone or in combination vs. other treatments: complex regimens | 9 | 89% | 2936 |
| 14 | Vitamin D alone or in combination vs. other treatment: long‐term studies (> 24 wks) | 1 | 100% | 297 |
| 15 | Vitamin D analogues vs. other treatment | 19 | 68% | 2364 |
| 16 | Flexural/facial psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials | 2 | 100% | 122 |
| 17 | Flexural/facial psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination vs. other treatment | 4 | 75% | 588 |
| 18 | Scalp psoriasis: placebo‐controlled trials | 14 | 93% | 3011 |
| 19 | Scalp psoriasis: vitamin D alone or in combination vs. other treatments | 12 | 100% | 5413 |
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol OD/BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.93; 95% CI ‐1.17 to ‐0.68) | (SMD ‐1.15; 95% CI ‐1.41 to ‐0.89) | (SMD ‐0.65; 95% CI ‐0.75 to ‐0.55) | (SMD ‐0.64; 95% CI ‐0.97 to ‐0.30) | (SMD ‐0.96; 95% CI ‐1.15 to ‐0.77) |
| 02 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | Effect size [CI] | NA | (SMD ‐0.15; 95% CI ‐0.44 to 0.14) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.15; 95% CI ‐0.44 to 0.14) |
| 03 Calcitriol OD/BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.03; 95% CI ‐1.71 to ‐0.36) | (SMD ‐1.22; 95% CI ‐2.38 to ‐0.07) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.59; 95% CI ‐0.76 to ‐0.41) | (SMD ‐0.92; 95% CI ‐1.54 to ‐0.29) |
| 04 Tacalcitol OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.84; 95% CI ‐1.41 to ‐0.26) | (SMD ‐0.66; 95% CI ‐0.95 to ‐0.36) | (SMD ‐0.27; 95% CI ‐0.56 to 0.03) | (SMD ‐0.24; 95% CI ‐0.53 to 0.05) | (SMD ‐0.73; 95% CI ‐1.09 to ‐0.37) |
| 05 Maxacalcitol OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.43; 95% CI ‐1.91 to ‐0.96) | (SMD ‐1.61; 95% CI ‐2.10 to ‐1.12) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.43; 95% CI ‐1.91 to ‐0.96) |
| 06 Paricalcitol OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.66; 95% CI ‐2.66 to ‐0.67) | (SMD ‐2.15; 95% CI ‐3.24 to ‐1.06) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.66; 95% CI ‐2.66 to ‐0.67) |
| 07 Becocalcidiol OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.22; 95% CI ‐0.58 to 0.14) | (SMD ‐0.02; 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.34) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.22; 95% CI ‐0.58 to 0.14) |
| 08 Becocalcidiol BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.67; 95% CI ‐1.04 to ‐0.30) | (SMD ‐0.46; 95% CI ‐0.83 to ‐0.10) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.67; 95% CI ‐1.04 to ‐0.30) |
| All treatments | Effect size [CI]; I² statistic | (SMD ‐0.95; 95% CI ‐1.17 to ‐0.74): I² statistic: 89.0% | (SMD ‐1.04; 95% CI ‐1.33 to ‐0.74) I² statistic: 93.0% | (SMD ‐0.58; 95% CI ‐0.71 to ‐0.45): I² statistic: 42.3% | (SMD ‐0.54; 95% CI ‐0.72 to ‐0.36): I² statistic: 55.5% | (SMD ‐0.90; 95% CI ‐1.07 to ‐0.72); I² statistic: 87.5% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 3771 | 2647 | 2357 | 1467 | 4986 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 13 | 9 | 8 | 5 | 18 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 7 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 12 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 4 wks to 12 wks | 4 wks to 12 wks | 3 wks to 8 wks | 8 wks to 8 wks | 3 wks to 12 wks |
| Sensitivity analyses | Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.11; 95% CI ‐1.58 to ‐0.64) |
| ‐ | Between‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.80; 95% CI ‐0.96 to ‐0.63) |
| ‐ | Calcitriol, Perez 1996 removed | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.60; 95% CI ‐0.78 to ‐0.41) | |
| ‐ | Calcipotriol BD | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.02; 95% CI ‐1.23 to ‐0.82) |
| ‐ | Calcipotriol OD | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.76; 95% CI ‐1.13 to ‐0.40) |
| ‐ | correlation coefficient (rho) = 0 All trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.85; 95% CI ‐1.00 to ‐0.71); |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.25 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.87; 95% CI ‐1.01 to ‐0.72); |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.50 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.88; 95% CI ‐1.03 to ‐0.73); |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.75 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.91; 95% CI ‐1.07 to ‐0.75); |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.81; 95% CI ‐0.98 to ‐0.64) | (SMD ‐0.74; 95% CI ‐1.16 to ‐0.32) | (SMD ‐0.79; 95% CI ‐1.44 to ‐0.14) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.80; 95% CI ‐0.96 to ‐0.64) |
| 02 Betamethasone dipropionate BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.35; 95% CI ‐1.56 to ‐1.15) | (SMD ‐0.77; 95% CI ‐1.48 to ‐0.06) | (SMD ‐1.21; 95% CI ‐1.44 to ‐0.97) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.35; 95% CI ‐1.56 to ‐1.15) |
| 03 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.95; 95% CI ‐1.62 to ‐0.27) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.95; 95% CI ‐1.62 to ‐0.27) | |
| 04 Betamethasone valerate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.41; 95% CI ‐1.92 to ‐0.90) | (SMD ‐1.09; 95% CI ‐2.00 to ‐0.18) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.33; 95% CI ‐1.78 to ‐0.89) |
| 05 Budesonide | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| 06 Desonide | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.81; 95% CI ‐1.34 to ‐0.28) | (SMD ‐1.16; 95% CI ‐1.70 to ‐0.61) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.81; 95% CI ‐1.34 to ‐0.28) |
| 07 Diflorasone diacetate | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.32; 95% CI ‐0.73 to 0.09) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.32; 95% CI ‐0.73 to 0.09) |
| 08 Fluticasone propionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.93; 95% CI ‐1.14 to ‐0.72) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.93; 95% CI ‐1.14 to ‐0.72) |
| 09 Hydrocortisone buteprate | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.46; 95% CI ‐0.77 to ‐0.15) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.46; 95% CI ‐0.77 to ‐0.15) |
| 10 Mometasone furoate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.75; 95% CI ‐1.17 to ‐0.34) | (SMD ‐1.12; 95% CI ‐1.55 to ‐0.68) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.75; 95% CI ‐1.17 to ‐0.34) |
| All treatments | Effect size [CI]; I² statistic | (SMD ‐1.00; 95% CI ‐1.18 to ‐0.82); I² statistic: 57.6% | (SMD ‐0.77; 95% CI ‐1.01 to ‐0.52); I² statistic: 46.7% | (SMD ‐0.97; 95% CI ‐1.31 to ‐0.62); I² statistic: 79.6% | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.89; 95% CI ‐1.06 to ‐0.72); I² statistic: 65.1% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 1867 | 553 | 1158 | 0 | 2216 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 8 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 11 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 3 wks to 12 wks | 2 wks to 12 wks | 4 wks to 8 wks | ‐ | 2 wks to 12 wks |
| Sensitivity analyses | Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.33; 95% CI ‐1.78 to ‐0.89) |
| ‐ | Between‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.85; 95% CI ‐1.03 to ‐0.67) |
| ‐ | correlation coefficient (rho) = 0 All trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.89; 95% CI ‐1.06 to ‐0.72) I² statistic: 77.7% |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.25 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.89; 95% CI ‐1.06 to ‐0.72) I² statistic: 78.0% |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.50 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.90; 95% CI ‐1.07 to ‐0.73) I² statistic: 78.6% |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.75 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.91; 95% CI ‐1.08 to ‐0.74) I² statistic: 80.2% |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. Both within‐patient trials compared betamethasone valerate with placebo. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Clobetasol propionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.89; 95% CI ‐2.53 to ‐1.24) | (SMD ‐1.35; 95% CI ‐1.80 to ‐0.89) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.01; 95% CI ‐1.55 to ‐0.47) | (SMD ‐1.65; 95% CI ‐2.10 to ‐1.20) |
| 02 Halcinonide | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| 03 Halobetasol | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.81; 95% CI ‐2.37 to ‐1.24) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.25; 95% CI ‐1.46 to ‐1.04) | (SMD ‐1.36; 95% CI ‐1.65 to ‐1.07) |
| All treatments | Effect size [CI], N, I² | (SMD ‐1.87; 95% CI ‐2.38 to ‐1.36); I² statistic: 78.7% | (SMD ‐1.35; 95% CI ‐1.80 to ‐0.89); I² statistic: 75.3% | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.22; 95% CI ‐1.42 to ‐1.02); I² statistic: 0% | (SMD ‐1.56; 95% CI ‐1.87 to ‐1.26); I² statistic: 81.7% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 515 | 545 | 0 | 283 | 1264 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 7 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 2 wks to 4 wks | 2 wks to 4 wks | 2 wks to 2 wks | 2 wks to 4 wks | |
| Sensitivity analyses | Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.52; 95% CI ‐2.02 to ‐1.02) |
| ‐ | Between‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.58; 95% CI ‐1.99 to ‐1.17) |
| ‐ | correlation coefficient (rho) = 0 All trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.52; 95% CI ‐1.80 to ‐1.24) I² statistic: 81.6% |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.25 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.52; 95% CI ‐1.80 to ‐1.25) I² statistic: 82.2% |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.50 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.53; 95% CI ‐1.80 to ‐1.26) I² statistic: 83.3% |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.75 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.55; 95% CI ‐1.80 to ‐1.29) I² statistic: 85.9% |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.21; 95% CI ‐1.50 to ‐0.91) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.14; 95% CI ‐1.57 to ‐0.70) | (SMD ‐0.69; 95% CI ‐0.98 to ‐0.40) | (SMD ‐1.21; 95% CI ‐1.50 to ‐0.91) |
| 02 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.90; 95% CI ‐2.09 to ‐1.71) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.41; 95% CI ‐1.86 to ‐0.97) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.90; 95% CI ‐2.09 to ‐1.71) |
| All treatments | Effect size [CI], N, I² statistic | (SMD ‐1.44; 95% CI ‐1.76 to ‐1.12); I² statistic: 89.4% | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.24; 95% CI ‐1.53 to ‐0.95); I² statistic: 87.6% | (SMD ‐0.69; 95% CI ‐0.98 to ‐0.40); I² statistic: NA | (SMD ‐1.44; 95% CI ‐1.76 to ‐1.12); I² statistic: 89.4% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 2058 | 0 | 2056 | 235 | 2058 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 5 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 5 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 4 wks to 8 wks | ‐ | 4 wks to 8 wks | 8 wks | 4 wks to 8 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Aloe vera extract | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.58; 95% CI ‐2.16 to ‐0.99) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.58; 95% CI ‐2.16 to ‐0.99) |
| 02 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.59; 95% CI ‐1.01 to ‐0.16) | (SMD ‐0.70; 95% CI ‐1.13 to ‐0.27) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.59; 95% CI ‐1.01 to ‐0.16) |
| 03 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoine plus salicylic acid | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.76; 95% CI ‐1.21 to ‐0.31) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.54; 95% CI ‐0.99 to ‐0.10) | (SMD ‐0.80; 95% CI ‐1.26 to ‐0.35) | (SMD ‐0.76; 95% CI ‐1.21 to ‐0.31) |
| 04 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.39; 95% CI ‐0.84 to 0.06) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.39; 95% CI ‐0.84 to 0.06) |
| 05 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, BD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.48; 95% CI ‐0.81 to ‐0.15) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.48; 95% CI ‐0.81 to ‐0.15) |
| 06 Dead sea salts emollient lotion | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.57; 95% CI ‐0.36 to 1.51) | ‐ | (SMD 0.57; 95% CI ‐0.36 to 1.51) |
| 07 Fish oil plus occlusion | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.05; 95% CI ‐1.64 to ‐0.46) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.05; 95% CI ‐1.64 to ‐0.46) |
| 08 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐2.96; 95% CI ‐4.19 to ‐1.74) | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.96; 95% CI ‐4.19 to ‐1.74) | ||
| 09 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.62; 95% CI ‐1.35 to 0.12) | (SMD ‐1.13; 95% CI ‐1.91 to ‐0.35) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.62; 95% CI ‐1.35 to 0.12) |
| 10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐2.14; 95% CI ‐2.74 to ‐1.53) | (SMD ‐1.64; 95% CI ‐2.13 to ‐1.15) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.09; 95% CI ‐2.62 to ‐1.56) |
| 11 Kukui nut oil, TD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.00; 95% CI ‐0.80 to 0.80) | (SMD 0.33; 95% CI ‐0.48 to 1.14) | (SMD ‐0.03; 95% CI ‐0.84 to 0.77) | (SMD 0.00; 95% CI ‐0.80 to 0.80) | (SMD 0.00; 95% CI ‐0.80 to 0.80) |
| 12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), BD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.77; 95% CI ‐1.06 to ‐0.48) |
| 13 Methotrexate gel | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.56; 95% CI ‐1.01 to ‐0.12) | (SMD ‐0.48; 95% CI ‐0.92 to ‐0.04) | (SMD ‐1.58; 95% CI ‐2.16 to ‐0.99) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.05; 95% CI ‐2.04 to ‐0.06) |
| 14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.44; 95% CI ‐2.67 to ‐0.22) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.44; 95% CI ‐2.67 to ‐0.22) |
| 15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD 0.08; 95% CI ‐0.60 to 0.75) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.08; 95% CI ‐0.60 to 0.75) |
| 16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, BD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.20; 95% CI ‐0.60 to 0.20) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.20; 95% CI ‐0.60 to 0.20) |
| 17 Oleum horwathiensis | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.02; 95% CI ‐0.63 to 0.58) | (SMD ‐0.77; 95% CI ‐1.40 to ‐0.14) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.02; 95% CI ‐0.63 to 0.58) |
| 18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| 19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF) (Ro 24‐0238) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.07; 95% CI ‐0.50 to 0.37) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.07; 95% CI ‐0.50 to 0.37) | |
| 20 Polymyxin B cream, 200,000 U/g | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD 0.13; 95% CI ‐0.59 to 0.85) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.13; 95% CI ‐0.59 to 0.85) |
| 21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, BD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.31; 95% CI ‐3.26 to ‐1.36) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.31; 95% CI ‐3.26 to ‐1.36) |
| 22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.39; 95% CI ‐0.98 to 0.21) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.39; 95% CI ‐0.98 to 0.21) |
| 23 Tacrolimus ointment | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD 0.06; 95% CI ‐0.52 to 0.63) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.06; 95% CI ‐0.52 to 0.63) |
| 24 Tar | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.45; 95% CI ‐1.11 to 0.22) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.45; 95% CI ‐1.11 to 0.22) |
| 25 Tazarotene | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.86; 95% CI ‐1.11 to ‐0.62) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.86; 95% CI ‐1.11 to ‐0.62) |
| 26 Theophylline 1% ointment, BD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.87; 95% CI ‐4.13 to ‐1.62) | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.87; 95% CI ‐4.13 to ‐1.62) |
| All treatments | (not pooled) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ | No. participants | 364 | 907 | 529 | 105 | 1450 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 4 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 12 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 4 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 14 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 3 wks to 12 wks | 3 wks to 12 wks | 2 wks to 12 wks | 3 wks to 12 wks | 2 wks to 12 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.43; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.58) | ‐ | (SMD 0.36; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.51) | ‐ | (SMD 0.43; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.58) |
| 02 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.02; 95% CI ‐0.21 to 0.17) | (SMD ‐0.26; 95% CI ‐0.41 to ‐0.11) | (SMD ‐0.12; 95% CI ‐0.22 to ‐0.02) | (SMD ‐0.26; 95% CI ‐0.38 to ‐0.14) | (SMD ‐0.12; 95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.02) |
| 03 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.15; 95% CI ‐0.73 to 1.02) | ‐ | (SMD 0.15; 95% CI ‐0.73 to 1.02) |
| 04 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.52) | (SMD 0.40; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.65) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.52) |
| 05 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.58; 95% CI ‐0.99 to ‐0.18) | (SMD ‐0.50; 95% CI ‐0.92 to ‐0.07) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.58; 95% CI ‐0.99 to ‐0.18) |
| 06 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.21; 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.45) | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.02 to 0.51) | (SMD 0.39; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.63) | ‐ | (SMD 0.21; 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.45) |
| 07 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.19; 95% CI ‐0.91 to 0.53) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.19; 95% CI ‐0.91 to 0.53) |
| 08 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD 0.41; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.41; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.74) |
| All treatments | Effect size [CI]; I² statistic | (SMD 0.17; 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.37); I² statistic: 83.4% | (SMD 0.11; 95% CI ‐0.22 to 0.44); I² statistic: 86.7% | (SMD 0.12; 95% CI ‐0.07 to 0.32); I² statistic: 86.2% | (SMD ‐0.26; 95% CI ‐0.38 to ‐0.14); I² statistic: 0% | (SMD 0.11; 95% CI ‐0.07 to 0.30); I² statistic: 85.6% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 2655 | 891 | 3185 | 738 | 3542 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 7 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 9 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 1 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 3 wks to 8 wks | 3 wks to 6 wks | 4 wks to 8 wks | 6 wks | 3 wks to 8 wks |
| Sensitivity analyses | Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.17; 95% CI ‐0.20 to 0.54) |
| ‐ | Between‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.10; 95% CI ‐0.11 to 0.31) |
| ‐ | correlation coefficient (rho) = 0 All trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.10; 95% CI ‐0.08 to 0.28); |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.25 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.10; 95% CI ‐0.07 to 0.28) |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.50 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.11; 95% CI ‐0.07 to 0.29) |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.75 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.12; 95% CI ‐0.06 to 0.30) |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.19; 95% CI ‐0.42 to 0.80) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.32; 95% CI ‐0.95 to 0.30) | (SMD 0.42; 95% CI ‐0.20 to 1.03) | (SMD ‐0.06; 95% CI ‐0.57 to 0.44); I² statistic: 25.7% |
| All treatments | No. participants | 42 | 0 | 40 | 42 | 82 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 2 wks | ‐ | 6 wks | 2 wks | 2 wks to 6 wks |
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.40; 95% CI ‐0.52 to ‐0.27) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.44; 95% CI ‐0.55 to ‐0.33) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.40; 95% CI ‐0.52 to ‐0.27) |
| 02 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.81) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.81) |
| 03 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.69; 95% CI ‐1.22 to ‐0.15) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.28; 95% CI ‐0.80 to 0.24) | (SMD ‐0.69; 95% CI ‐1.22 to ‐0.15) |
| ‐ | Effect size [CI], I² | (SMD ‐0.41; 95% CI ‐0.53 to ‐0.29); I² statistic: 32.0% | (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.81): I² statistic: NA | (SMD ‐0.44; 95% CI ‐0.55 to ‐0.33) I² statistic: 22.4% | (SMD ‐0.28; 95% CI ‐0.80 to 0.24) I² statistic: NA | (SMD ‐0.26; 95% CI ‐0.52 to ‐0.00); I² statistic: 84.4% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 1991 | 122 | 1876 | 65 | 2113 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 2 wks to 8 wks | 4 wks | 4 wks to 8 wks | 2 wks | 2 wks to 8 wks |
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.43; 95% CI ‐0.85 to ‐0.01) | (SMD ‐0.54; 95% CI ‐1.16 to 0.08) | (SMD 0.73; 95% CI ‐0.55 to 2.00) | (SMD ‐0.05; 95% CI ‐0.90 to 0.80) | (SMD 0.07; 95% CI ‐0.57 to 0.71) |
| 02 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.51; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88) | (SMD 0.13; 95% CI ‐0.24 to 0.50) | (SMD ‐0.21; 95% CI ‐0.58 to 0.16) | ‐ | (SMD 0.51; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.88) |
| 03 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.18; 95% CI ‐0.60 to 0.25) | (SMD ‐0.07; 95% CI ‐0.50 to 0.36) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.18; 95% CI ‐0.60 to 0.25) |
| All treatments | Effect size [CI], I² statistic | (SMD ‐0.24; 95% CI ‐0.72 to 0.25); I² statistic:93.0% | (SMD ‐0.27; 95% CI ‐0.73 to 0.20); I² statistic: 80.6% | (SMD 0.36; 95% CI ‐0.33 to 1.04); I² statistic: 94.5% | (SMD ‐0.05; 95% CI ‐0.90 to 0.80); I² statistic: 92.5% | (SMD 0.09; 95% CI ‐0.44 to 0.63); I² statistic: 94.9% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 1108 | 386 | 796 | 544 | 1284 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 5 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 7 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 8 wks to 12 wks | 4 wks to 8 wks | 8 wks to 12 wks | 8 wks to 12 wks | 4 wks to 12 wks |
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.00; 95% CI ‐0.25 to 0.25) | (SMD ‐0.32; 95% CI ‐0.57 to ‐0.07) | (SMD ‐1.11; 95% CI ‐2.22 to 0.01) | (SMD 0.04; 95% CI ‐0.21 to 0.29) | (SMD ‐0.41; 95% CI ‐1.46 to 0.64) |
| 02 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.47; 95% CI ‐0.73 to ‐0.21) | (SMD ‐0.45; 95% CI ‐0.68 to ‐0.22) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.47; 95% CI ‐0.73 to ‐0.21) |
| 03 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.43; 95% CI ‐0.12 to 0.98) | (SMD 0.13; 95% CI ‐0.41 to 0.68) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.43; 95% CI ‐0.12 to 0.98) |
| All treatments | Effect size [CI], I² | (SMD ‐0.06; 95% CI ‐0.51 to 0.38); I² statistic: 82.2% | (SMD ‐0.31; 95% CI ‐0.55 to ‐0.06); I² statistic: 46.9% | (SMD ‐1.11; 95% CI ‐2.22 to 0.01); I² statistic: NA | (SMD 0.04; 95% CI ‐0.21 to 0.29); I² statistic: NA | (SMD ‐0.17; 95% CI ‐0.62 to 0.27); I² statistic: 78.5% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 498 | 563 | 15 | 250 | 513 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 8 wks to 12 wks | 8 wks to 12 wks | 8 wks | 12 wks | 8 wks to 12 wks |
| Sensitivity analyses | TSS data from Ji 2008 used in combined end point: 01 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.52; 95% CI ‐1.19 to 0.15; I² statistic: 44.9%) | |
| ‐ | TSS data from Ji 2008 used in combined end point: all treatments | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.28; 95% CI ‐0.66 to 0.10; I² statistic: 70.6%) |
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol BD vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88) | ‐ | (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.82) | ‐ | (SMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88) |
| 02 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.66; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.02) | ‐ | (SMD 0.67; 95% CI 0.23 to 1.11) | ‐ | (SMD 0.66; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.02) |
| 03 Calcipotriol BD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.06 to 0.48) | (SMD 0.25; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.48) | (SMD 0.52; 95% CI 0.38 to 0.67) | ‐ | (SMD 0.43; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.66) |
| 04 Calcipotriol BD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.66; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93) | ‐ | (SMD 0.64; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.83) | ‐ | (SMD 0.66; 95% CI 0.40 to 0.93) |
| 05 Calcipotriol BD vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI ‐0.19 to 0.74) | ‐ | (SMD 0.43; 95% CI ‐0.07 to 0.93) | ‐ | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI ‐0.19 to 0.74) |
| 06 Calcipotriol BD vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.48) | ‐ | (SMD 0.17; 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.38) | ‐ | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.48) |
| 07 Calcipotriol BD vs. calcipotriol BD + clobetasol propionate BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.88; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.42) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.70; 95% CI 0.16 to 1.23) | (SMD 0.88; 95% CI 0.34 to 1.42) |
| 08 Calcipotriol BD vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.08; 95% CI ‐0.29 to 0.44) | ‐ | (SMD 0.08; 95% CI ‐0.29 to 0.44) |
| 09 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.53; 95% CI ‐0.11 to 1.18) | ‐ | (SMD 0.53; 95% CI ‐0.11 to 1.18) |
| 10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.14; 95% CI ‐0.06 to 0.33) | ‐ | (SMD 0.08; 95% CI ‐0.11 to 0.28) | ‐ | (SMD 0.14; 95% CI ‐0.06 to 0.33) |
| 11 calcitriol BD vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.24; 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.57) | ‐ | (SMD 0.24; 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.57) |
| 12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.48; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.70) | ‐ | (SMD 0.47; 95% CI 0.25 to 0.69) | (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.68) | (SMD 0.48; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.70) |
| All treatments | Effect size [CI], I² statistic | (SMD 0.48; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.65), I² statistic: 86.9% | (SMD 0.25; 95% CI 0.03 to 0.48) | (SMD 0.47; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.59), I² statistic: 82.3% | (SMD 0.49; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.69), I² statistic: 0% | (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.33 to 0.59), I² statistic: 83.3% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 4791 | 301 | 5703 | 399 | 5856 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 11 | 1 | 15 | 2 | 16 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 2 wks to 8 wks | 4 wks | 2 wks to 12 wks | 2 wks to 8 wks | 2 wks to 12 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.12; 95% CI ‐0.29 to 0.04) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.04; 95% CI ‐0.19 to 0.11) | (SMD ‐0.14; 95% CI ‐0.30 to 0.02) | (SMD ‐0.12; 95% CI ‐0.29 to 0.04) |
| 02 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.29; 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.62) | ‐ | (SMD 0.29; 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.62) |
| 03 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.13; 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.29) | ‐ | (SMD 0.10; 95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.25) | (SMD 0.10; 95% CI ‐0.06 to 0.26) | (SMD 0.13; 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.29) |
| 04 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.60; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.02) | (SMD 0.63; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.05) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.60; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.02) |
| 05 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol BD (4 wks) | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.66; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.32) | ‐ | (SMD 0.66; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.32) |
| 06 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol BD (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol BD (2wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.41; 95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.86) | ‐ | (SMD 1.13; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.62) | ‐ | (SMD 0.41; 95% CI ‐0.05 to 0.86) |
| 07 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol BD (to wk12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol BD (to wk12) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.19; 95% CI ‐0.54 to 0.16) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.27; 95% CI ‐0.62 to 0.09) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.19; 95% CI ‐0.54 to 0.16) |
| 08 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment BD (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment BD (8 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.41) | ‐ | (SMD 0.25; 95% CI 0.10 to 0.39) | (SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.42) | (SMD 0.27; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.41) |
| 09 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment BD (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.66) | ‐ | (SMD 0.59; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.74) | (SMD 0.71; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.85) | (SMD 0.51; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.66) |
| 10 combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment BD (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.26; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40) | ‐ | (SMD 0.30; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.45) | (SMD 0.44; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.58) | (SMD 0.26; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.40) |
| 11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40) | ‐ | (SMD 0.15; 95% CI ‐0.01 to 0.30) | (SMD 0.23; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.39) | (SMD 0.24; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.40) |
| 12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72) | ‐ | (SMD 0.49; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.67) | (SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72) | (SMD 0.54; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.72) |
| All treatments | (not pooled) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ | No. participants | 2755 | 46 | 2991 | 2508 | 2936 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 6 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 8 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 6 wks to 12 wks | 6 wks | 2 wks to 12 wks | 8 wks to 12 wks | 2 wks to 12 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.09; 95% CI ‐0.36 to 0.18) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.09; 95% CI ‐0.36 to 0.18) |
| 02 Combined calcipotriol+BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol+ BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.18; 95% CI ‐0.47 to 0.10) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.18; 95% CI ‐0.47 to 0.10) |
| 03 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.09; 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.19) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.09; 95% CI ‐0.37 to 0.19) |
| All treatments | (no pooling) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ | No. participants | 297 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 297 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 52 wks | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | 52 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.53; 95% CI ‐1.74 to 0.68) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.10; 95% CI ‐1.54 to 1.35) | (SMD ‐0.10; 95% CI ‐1.54 to 1.35) | (SMD ‐0.53; 95% CI ‐1.74 to 0.68) |
| 02 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.59; 95% CI ‐0.87 to ‐0.31) | (SMD ‐0.51; 95% CI ‐0.86 to ‐0.16) | (SMD ‐0.63; 95% CI ‐1.06 to ‐0.20) | (SMD ‐0.63; 95% CI ‐1.06 to ‐0.20) | (SMD ‐0.59; 95% CI ‐0.87 to ‐0.31) |
| 03 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, BD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.09; 95% CI ‐0.49 to 0.31) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.09; 95% CI ‐0.49 to 0.31) |
| 04 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, BD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD 0.19; 95% CI ‐0.14 to 0.52) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.19; 95% CI ‐0.14 to 0.52) |
| 05 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.06; 95% CI ‐0.33 to 0.22) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.05; 95% CI ‐0.36 to 0.26) | (SMD ‐0.49; 95% CI ‐0.79 to ‐0.20) | (SMD ‐0.05; 95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.15) |
| 06 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.24; 95% CI ‐3.23 to ‐1.25) | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.24; 95% CI ‐3.23 to ‐1.25) |
| 07 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.35; 95% CI ‐1.51 to 0.81) | (SMD ‐0.13; 95% CI ‐0.51 to 0.24) | (SMD ‐0.55; 95% CI ‐1.28 to 0.17) | |
| 08 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.22; 95% CI ‐0.60 to 0.16) | (SMD ‐0.05; 95% CI ‐0.33 to 0.23) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.35; 95% CI ‐0.99 to 0.29) | (SMD ‐0.10; 95% CI ‐0.35 to 0.16) |
| 09 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| 10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.55; 95% CI ‐1.33 to 0.24) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.01; 95% CI ‐0.78 to 0.75) | (SMD ‐0.55; 95% CI ‐1.33 to 0.24) | (SMD ‐0.55; 95% CI ‐1.33 to 0.24) |
| 11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: dosing | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.24; 95% CI ‐0.38 to ‐0.09) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.12; 95% CI ‐0.25 to 0.00) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.20; 95% CI ‐0.32 to ‐0.07) |
| 12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: occlusion | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.18; 95% CI ‐2.04 to 1.68) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.18; 95% CI ‐2.04 to 1.68) |
| All treatments | (not pooled) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ | No. participants | 1386 | 898 | 1228 | 456 | 2364 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 8 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 13 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 4 wks to 12 wks | 6 wks to 12 wks | 4 wks to 12 wks | 4 wks to 12 wks | 4 wks to 12 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.83; 95% CI ‐3.79 to ‐1.88) | ‐ | (SMD ‐2.83; 95% CI ‐3.79 to ‐1.88) |
| 02 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.08; 95% CI ‐1.77 to ‐0.40) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.08; 95% CI ‐1.77 to ‐0.40) |
| 03 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/BD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.07; 95% CI ‐1.69 to ‐0.45) | (SMD ‐1.37; 95% CI ‐1.95 to ‐0.79) | (SMD ‐0.62; 95% CI ‐1.27 to 0.02) | (SMD ‐0.65; 95% CI ‐1.24 to ‐0.06) | (SMD ‐0.86; 95% CI ‐1.30 to ‐0.41) |
| 04 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, BD | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| All treatments | (no pooling) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ | No. participants | 47 | 57 | 75 | 47 | 122 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 8 wks | 8 wks | 4 wks | 8 wks | 4 wks to 8 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 2.02; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.84) | ‐ | (SMD 2.02; 95% CI 1.20 to 2.84) |
| 02 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.30; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50) | ‐ | (SMD 0.32; 95% CI 0.12 to 0.51) | ‐ | (SMD 0.30; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50) |
| 03 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD 0.61; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.94) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.61; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.94) |
| 04 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.53; 95% CI ‐1.17 to 0.11) | (SMD ‐0.53; 95% CI ‐1.17 to 0.11) | |
| 05 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.42; 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.98) | (SMD 0.29; 95% CI ‐0.27 to 0.85) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.42; 95% CI ‐0.15 to 0.98) |
| All treatments | (no pooling) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ |
| ‐ | No. participants | 457 | 124 | 464 | 0 | 588 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 6 wks to 8 wks | 6 wks | 4 wks to 8 wks | 0 | 4 wks to 8 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.72; 95% CI ‐1.28 to ‐0.16) | (SMD ‐0.44; 95% CI ‐0.64 to ‐0.25) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.66; 95% CI ‐1.28 to ‐0.05) | (SMD ‐0.72; 95% CI ‐1.28 to ‐0.16) |
| 02 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.09; 95% CI ‐1.29 to ‐0.90) | (SMD ‐1.00; 95% CI ‐1.19 to ‐0.81) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.23; 95% CI ‐1.43 to ‐1.03) | (SMD ‐1.09; 95% CI ‐1.29 to ‐0.90) |
| 03 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.40; 95% CI ‐1.75 to ‐1.05) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.40; 95% CI ‐1.75 to ‐1.05) |
| 04 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.42; 95% CI ‐1.80 to ‐1.04) | (SMD ‐1.58; 95% CI ‐1.98 to ‐1.18) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.97; 95% CI ‐1.33 to ‐0.61) | (SMD ‐1.42; 95% CI ‐1.80 to ‐1.04) |
| 05 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.73; 95% CI ‐1.99 to ‐1.48) | (SMD ‐1.53; 95% CI ‐1.77 to ‐1.28) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.57; 95% CI ‐1.81 to ‐1.34) |
| 06 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.11; 95% CI ‐1.69 to ‐0.53) | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.11; 95% CI ‐1.69 to ‐0.53) |
| 07 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.97; 95% CI ‐1.61 to ‐0.32) | (SMD ‐0.92; 95% CI ‐1.42 to ‐0.43) | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.00; 95% CI ‐1.79 to ‐0.22) | (SMD ‐0.97; 95% CI ‐1.61 to ‐0.32) |
| 08 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.48; 95% CI ‐2.50 to ‐0.47) | (SMD ‐1.15; 95% CI ‐2.11 to ‐0.19) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.48; 95% CI ‐2.50 to ‐0.47) |
| 09 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.07; 95% CI ‐0.82 to 0.68) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.11; 95% CI ‐0.86 to 0.64) | (SMD ‐0.07; 95% CI ‐0.82 to 0.68) |
| 10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐1.22; 95% CI ‐1.69 to ‐0.76) | (SMD ‐0.89; 95% CI ‐1.34 to ‐0.44) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.22; 95% CI ‐1.69 to ‐0.76) |
| 11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.86; 95% CI ‐1.79 to 0.06) | (SMD ‐0.57; 95% CI ‐1.47 to 0.32) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.86; 95% CI ‐1.79 to 0.06) |
| All treatments | No. participants | 2472 | 2897 | 0 | 1875 | 3011 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 9 | 12 | 0 | 5 | 13 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 2 wks to 8 wks | 2 wks to 8 wks | ‐ | 3 wks to 8 wks | 2 wks to 8 wks |
| Sensitivity analysis: potent corticosteroids | Effect size [CI]; I² statistic | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.18; 95% CI ‐1.40 to ‐0.96); I² statistic: 19.9% |
| Sensitivity analysis: very potent corticosteroids | Effect size [CI]; I² statistic | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.51; 95% CI ‐1.70 to ‐1.31); I² statistic: 37.5% |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.48; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.64) | (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.28 to 0.63) | ‐ | (SMD 0.56; 95% CI 0.31 to 0.81) | (SMD 0.48; 95% CI 0.32 to 0.64) |
| 02 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.37; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55) | (SMD 0.09; 95% CI ‐0.09 to 0.27) | ‐ | (SMD 0.41; 95% CI 0.22 to 0.59) | (SMD 0.37; 95% CI 0.20 to 0.55) |
| 03 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | Effect size [CI] | ‐ | (SMD 0.37; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.69) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD 0.37; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.69) |
| 04 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.18; 95% CI ‐0.26 to ‐0.10) | (SMD ‐0.19; 95% CI ‐0.27 to ‐0.11) | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.17; 95% CI ‐0.25 to ‐0.09) | (SMD ‐0.18; 95% CI ‐0.26 to ‐0.10) |
| 05 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | Effect size [CI] | (SMD 0.64; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84) | (SMD 0.70; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.84) | ‐ | (SMD 0.84; 95% CI 0.61 to 1.08) | (SMD 0.64; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.84) |
| 06 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | Effect size [CI] | (SMD ‐0.24; 95% CI ‐0.73 to 0.25) | (SMD ‐0.30; 95% CI ‐0.84 to 0.24) | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.45; 95% CI ‐0.92 to 0.02) |
| All treatments | No. participants | 5175 | 4877 | 0 | 3742 | 5413 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 10 | 11 | 0 | 6 | 12 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 4 wks to 52 wks | 4 wks to 8 wks | 0 | 4 wks to 8 wks | 4 wks to 52 wks |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Subcategory | Measure | 01 IAGI/IGA | 02 TSS | 03 PASI | 04 PAGI/PGA | 05 Combined end point |
| 01 Dithranol | Effect size [CI], N, I² statistic | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.06; 95% CI ‐1.66 to ‐0.46); I² statistic: 37.4% | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.06; 95% CI ‐1.66 to ‐0.46); I² statistic: 37.4% |
| ‐ | No. participants | 0 | 47 | 0 | 0 | 47 |
| ‐ | Between‐patient design | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| ‐ | Within‐patient design | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| ‐ | Treatment duration | 3 wks to 8 wks | ‐ | ‐ | 3 wks to 8 wks | |
| ‐ | correlation coefficient (rho) = 0 All trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐0.98; 95% CI ‐1.56 to ‐0.41) I² statistic: 13.9% | |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.25 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.05; 95% CI ‐1.67 to ‐0.44) I² statistic: 35.4% |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.50 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.12; 95% CI ‐1.75 to ‐0.48) I² statistic: 56.9% |
| ‐ | rho = 0 Btw‐patient trials rho = 0.75 Within‐patient trials | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | ‐ | (SMD ‐1.17; 95% CI ‐1.81 to ‐0.52) I² statistic: 78.5% |
| For acronyms, see Table 1. | ||||||
| Study | Methods | Participants | Intervention(s) | Outcomes (AEs) | Summary findings | Notes | Allocation concealment |
| DESIGN: between‐patient patient delivery Concealment: unclear | N: 26 | Clobetasol propionate 0.05% shampoo, OD. Applied to dry scalp, rinsed off after 15 minutes Clobetasol propionate 0.05% gel, OD. Applied to dry scalp and left in. | Serum cortisol atrophogenicity (ultrasound measurement of skin thickness (epidermis + dermis) (mm), averaged over 3 sites of the scalp) ocular safety (intraocular pressure) DSS (10‐pt; sum of erythema, adherent desquamation, and plaque thickening; 0 (none) to 3 (severe) with half‐point ratings permitted) Patient‐reported ocular stinging (0 to 3) Compliance | Neither formulation had an impact on ocular safety, no report of ocular stinging. LAE: HPA suppression: Atrophy: Decrease in skin thickness from baseline: mean difference: Efficacy results of the 2 formulations were similar. Compliance with protocol was good in both groups. | Exploratory safety study Sponsored by Galderma Laboratories | Unclear | |
| DESIGN: within‐patient ALLOCATION: non‐random | N: 202 | Calcipotriol scalp solution 50 mcg/ml BD | Local AEs: serum calcium | Local AEs: | Sponsored by Leo Pharmaceuticals | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study Concealment: NA | STUDY A: | Study A: calcipotriol ointment 50 mcg/g BD up to 100 g/wk | Local AEs: | Study A: no significant trend in urine calcium excretion | Sponsorship not reported | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study ALLOCATION: non‐random Concealment: NA BLINDING: open WITHDRAWAL/DROPOUT: not described | N: 28 | STUDY A: 200 g calcipotriol ointment 50 mcg/g (wk 1) plus 300 g 50 mcg/g calcipotriol (wk 2) | Local AEs: | 5 participants developed hypercalcaemia during treatment, all had received a dose > 5 g/kg | Sponsorship not reported | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study | N: 305 % white: 91.8% | Clobetasol propionate 0.05% spray BD (2 to 4 wks); treatment responders (ODS < = 3) then treated with calcitriol 3 mg/g ointment (8 wks) | Pruritis, telangiectasias, burning/stinging (0 to 3), skin atrophy, folliculitis Overall disease severity (ODS) (5‐pt: 0 = clear to 4 = severe/very severe) based on erythema, scaling, and plaque elevation. Treatment success (change from baseline ODS > = 1 at wk 12)
| At 4 wks: skin atrophy 7/285 telangiectasias 2/285 stinging/Burning 39/285 folliculitis 11/285
At 12 wks: skin atrophy 2/235 telangiectasias 5/235 stinging/Burning 35/235 folliculitis 3/235
Any adverse event: 100/305
| Sponsored by Galderma laboratories | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: within‐patient | N: 14 EXCLUSION CRITERIA: NR | Clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment, BD Betamethasone valerate 0.1% ointment, BD | Local AEs: NR | Quantities used by study participants were small (mean: 7 g/wk) | Sponsorship not reported | Unclear | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery ALLOCATION: NA Method of randomisation: NA Concealment: NA BLINDING: open WITHDRAWAL/DROPOUT: described | N: 257 | Calcitriol 3 mcg/g BD | Local AEs: | Local AEs: | Sponsored by Solvay‐Duphar BV | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: between‐patient ALLOCATION: random | N: 78 EXCLUSION CRITERIA: hypercalcaemia, bone, thyroid or parathyroid disease; topical therapy within previous 2 wks; systemic/phototherapy within previous 8 wks | Calcipotriol 50 mcg/g ointment BD, up to 120 g/wk | Local AEs: not assessed | No adverse effects on bone metabolism or calcium | Sponsored by Bristol‐Myers Squibb | Unclear | |
| DESIGN: between‐patient (retrospective study) ALLOCATION: non‐random | N: 28 EXCLUSION CRITERIA: NR | Previous prolonged treatment with topical fluorinated steroids | Local AEs: light/electron microscopy for examination of basal keratinocyte herniation (BKH); layers of basement membrane | Local AEs: light microscopy revealed no between‐group differences. Electron microscopy revealed multi‐layered, fragmented and disorganised basal laminae in the steroid group, which appeared to be correlated with duration of treatment. Fragmentation was not observed in the control group | Sponsorship not reported | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: between‐patient ALLOCATION: random Method of randomisation: NS | N: 40 | Betamethasone dipropionate (0.05%) in optimised vehicle BD; Clobetasol 17 propionate (0.05%) ointment BD | Local AEs: not assessed Systemic AEs: morning plasma cortisol levels; 24‐hr urine steroid levels; FBC, blood chemistry, urinalysis | Temporary reversible suppression of the hypothalamic‐pituitary‐adrenal axis in 8/40 participants | Sponsorship not reported; 1 author from Schering Corporation | Unclear | |
| DESIGN: within‐patient ALLOCATION: random BLINDING: double‐blind (participant/investigator) | N: 30 | Betamethasone dipropionate (0.05%) in optimised vehicle BD (BMD) | Local AEs: skin surface microscopic examination with photographic documentation; oil and magnifying (8 x) lens to detect 'preatrophy' (visibility of subpapillary vascular plexus caused by thinning of epidermis and papillary dermis) | Local AEs: no serious adverse events observed with either treatment. Preatrophy identified in 20% of involved plaques (BMD: 11/59; CP: 12/59) and was more likely in females. In the test area (non‐psoriatic skin), 5% of plaques showed preatrophy (BMD: 2/30; CP: 1/30). Preatrophy appeared to be usually reversible following treatment cessation. | Sponsored by Schering Corporation | Unclear | |
| Phase II | DESIGN: uncontrolled BLINDING: open WITHDRAWAL/DROPOUT: | N: 32 | Clobetasol 0.05% foam BD Clobetasol 0.05% ointment BD (= 7 g/day, up to 50 g/wk)
| Maximal plasma concentration of clobetasol propionate
| Higher but non‐significant levels of clobetasol in ointment group | Supported by Stiefel Laboratories, Inc. Review of phase II studies on AD and psoriasis (clobetasol foam) | Not applicable |
| Phase III | DESIGN: between‐patient | N: 497 | Clobetasol 0.05% foam BD Clobetasol 0.05% ointment BD Placebo foam BD Face, scalp, and intertriginous areas excluded from treatment
| Treatment‐related adverse events:
ISGA (investigator's static global assessment score)(scale NR) | Atrophy: C foam: 2% (N = 253) Burning: C foam: 2% (N = 253) All treatment‐related adverse events: C foam: 8% (N = 253)
| Supported by Stiefel Laboratories Inc. Review of phase III studies on AD and psoriasis (clobetasol foam). | Unclear |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery ALLOCATION: non‐random BLINDING: open WITHDRAWAL/DROPOUT: described | N: 15 EXCLUSION CRITERIA: hypercalcaemia, impaired renal/hepatic function, daily receiving > 400 i.u. vitamin D | Calcipotriol ointment 50 mcg/g BD (max: 100 g/wk) | Local AEs: patient report of adverse events | Local AEs: | Sponsorship not reported. Leo Pharmaceuticals supplied study medication | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery ALLOCATION: non‐random | N: 157 INCLUSION CRITERIA: chronic plaque psoriasis; aged 18 to 70; BSA 7% to 20%; laboratory parameters normal at baseline EXCLUSION CRITERIA: pregnancy or risk thereof; topical antipsoriatic therapy within previous 2 wks; systemic antipsoriatic therapy within previous 6 wks; retinoids within previous 52 wks.; history of hyperparathyroidism; concomitant use of drugs affecting calcium metabolism | Tacalcitol ointment, 4 mcg/g OD. No control | Local AEs: participants asked about adverse events. Tolerability assessed by investigator (4‐pt: 1 = excellent to 4 = poor). | Local AEs: | Sponsored by Hermal/BHI, Germany | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: between‐patient ALLOCATION: random. | N: 40 EXCLUSION CRITERIA: history of sensitivity to study ingredients; topical antipsoriatics within previous 2 wks; UVB/PUVA within previous 8 wks; history of hypercalcaemia, recurrent illness | Initial regimen: all participants received 2 wks of calcipotriol (OM), halobetasol ointment (ON) | Local AEs: treatment‐related adverse events | Local AEs: | Sponsored by Westwood Squibb Pharmaceuticals | Unclear | |
| DESIGN: between‐patient patient delivery ALLOCATION: random | N: 50 | Open‐label phase: tazarotene 0.1% gel plus clobetasol propionate 0.05% ointment for 6 wks. Once daily initially, then 'tapered'. | Local AEs: no. steroid‐specific side‐effects | Local AEs: no steroid‐specific side‐effects | Sponsorship: not reported | Unclear | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled BLINDING: open | N: 1423 | Clobetasol 0.05% foam BD, up to 50 g/wk either as monotherapy or adjunctive to existing therapy
| Erythema, peeling/scaling, dryness, stinging/burning (0 none to 3 severe). Telangiectasia, skin atrophy, pruritus, folliculitis (absent/present)
Also assessed efficacy and QoL | Erythema: 23.7% Telangiectasia, skin atrophy, folliculitis: present in less than 1% of participants (findings not reported separately) Pruritus: 5.7% | Clobex Spray Community‐Based Research Assessment (COBRA) Sponsorship not reported | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery ALLOCATION: non‐random | N: 160 | Tacalcitol ointment 20 mcg/g OD (max: 10 g/day) | Local AEs: treatment‐related adverse events | Local AEs: | Sponsorship: not reported | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery ALLOCATION: non‐random BLINDING: open | N: 203 | Calcipotriol 50 mcg/g ointment | Loca AEs: self report of adverse events. | Local AEs: | Sponsored by Leo Pharmaceuticals | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled open study ALLOCATION: non‐random | N: 167 TD: 52 wks; FU: 52 wks LF: 39 (23.4%) BC: NA Age: 49 (range: 20 to 85) Gender (per cent men): 60% Severity: PASI (modified): 8.1 (6.7SD) INCLUSION CRITERIA: chronic plaque psoriasis; previous response to calcipotriol; managed by specialists EXCLUSION CRITERIA: pregnancy or risk thereof; abnormal serum calcium or phosphate; impaired hepatic/renal function; concomitant oral calcium/vitamin D; systemic therapy within previous 8 wks; topical therapy within previous 4 wks | Calcipotriol 50 mcg/g ointment. Max dose: 100 g/wk; 2500 g/pa Face/scalp/neck excluded | Local AEs: self report of adverse events: mild, moderate, severe; unlikely, possibly, or probably treatment‐related | AE(L): 52/161 60 (46 considered to be treatment‐related) events reported by 52 of 161 participants. 1 participant developed a significant rise in serum calcium. No other abnormalities in haematology or biochemistry tests. 118/161 participants reported continuous medication use and 80% to 90% used it twice daily. Mean use: 35.1 g/wk ('initially') to 23.4 g/wk during last 6 mths | Sponsored by Leo Pharmaceuticals | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: observational study using retrospective data (medical records, cancer registry) and prospective (survey) data (treatments/lifestyle). Multivariate proportional hazards regression. | N: 4315 | All topical, phototherapy, and systemic therapies. Focus of study is on coal tar:
| Any cancer Skin cancer Internal malignancies Specific tumour groups:
No statistically significant increased risk of any cancer. Hazard ratios: Any cancer: LCD: 0.85 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.19) Skin cancer: LCD: 1.35 (95% CI 0.53 to 3.44) | Analysis adjusted for smoking status, other treatments, skin type, alcohol consumption. However, data on duration of tar therapy, smoking status and alcohol consumption were missing for most participants | Not applicable‐ | ||
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery ALLOCATION: non‐random BLINDING: open | N: 58 | Part 1: double‐blind study (8 wks): tacalcitol 4 mcg/g ointment OD Placebo | Local AEs: occurrence of adverse events (duration, severity, and whether treatment‐related) | Local AEs: No case of hypercalcaemia | Sponsorship not reported | Not applicable | |
| van de Kerkhof 2002c (see also Lambert 2002) | DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery ALLOCATION: non‐random Method of randomisation: NA Concealment: NA BLINDING: open WITHDRAWAL/DROPOUT: described | Part 1: | Tacalcitol 4 mcg/g OD. Treatment discontinued during remission and restarted if relapse | Local AEs: number treatment‐related adverse events; withdrawals due to adverse events (WA); investigator assessment of tolerability; participant assessment of tolerability | Local AEs: | Sponsored by Hermal/BHI, Germany | Not applicable |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery ALLOCATION: non‐random BLINDING: open WITHDRAWAL/DROPOUT: described | N: 20 INCLUSION CRITERIA: EXCLUSION CRITERIA: use of topical steroids in previous 2 mths | Clobetasol propionate 0.05% cream, OD (weekends) plus calcipotriol 50 mcg/g ointment BD (weekdays) | Local AEs: clinical (naked eye) examination of psoriatic plaque and surrounding area | Overuse of topical steroids resulted in appearance of clinically unapparent but dermoscopically apparent linear telangiectasias. 7/20 participants failed to adhere to recommended steroid dosing schedules. Dermoscopic red lines not apparent in 15/20 participants. Dermoscopic red lines apparent in 5/20 participants, of whom 4 had overused topical steroid cream. Steroid discontinued in participants with red lines and there was complete resolution within 2 mths | Links compliance with adverse events | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study | N: 48 | 0.1% tazarotene gel, short contact therapy (applied OD for 20 minutes then rinsed off with water) | Pruritis (4‐pt: 0 = absent to 3 = severe) Burning (4‐pt: 0 = absent to 3 = severe) | At day 45: pruritis (0 to 3): 0.17 (0.38SD) 14/43 had mild pruritis
Burning (0 to 3) 0.17 (0.38SD) 14/43 14/43 had mild burning No participant withdrew because of irritation on treated lesion | Sponsorship not reported | Not applicable | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study patient delivery | N: 30 | Calcitriol 15 mcg/g ointment OD Quantity of study drug varied by group: Group 1 (N =12): 4% to 8% BSA treated (300 to 600 cm^2) Group 2 (N = 10): 8% to 15% BSA treated (600 to 1200 cm^2) Group 3 (N = 8): 15% to 30% BSA treated (1200 to 2400 cm^2) | IAGI (6‐pt) ECG Haematology, biochemistry, urine protein and glucose. Serum calcium, phosphorus, plasma PTH, serum 25‐hydroxyvitaim D, 1‐alpha,25dihydroxy‐vitaim D, 24 hr urine tests for calcium, creatinine and phosphorus. Compliance also assessed (medication weight) | Mean daily usage: 74.0 to 306.1 mcg. No systemic adverse events, no skin irritation. No clinically relevant changes in vital signs, haematology, biochemistry, urine or ECGs. IAGI (0 to 5): ‐3.57 (1.01SD, N = 30) | Usual dose is 3 mcg/g BD, max. 30 g daily Sponsored by Solvay Duphar | Not applicable | |
| per cent men: per cent male; AE(L): number local adverse events/number participants; AE(S): number systemic adverse events/number participants; AE: adverse events; BC: baseline comparability; BD: twice daily; BSA: body surface area; FU: follow up (includes TD); N: number enrolled; NA: not applicable; NR: not reported; OD: once daily; PASI: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PRN: as required; TD: treatment duration; TSS: Total Severity Score; WA: withdrawal due to adverse events | |||||||
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
| Follow‐up under 12 wks and not focused on adverse events | |
| Not psoriasis, short review (letter) | |
| Not a product included in our review (bexarotene gel 1%) | |
| Not focused on adverse events | |
| Evaluated add‐on clobetasol for participants treated concurrently with topical or systemic therapy | |
| Inadequate reporting of adverse events | |
| Small (N = 54) retrospective study using participant questionnaires ‐ aimed to identify teratogenetic effects of tar, but many women unable to recall whether tar used in pregnancy | |
| Not chronic plaque psoriasis: paediatric dermatology participants had eczema or "eczema–psoriasis overlap (atopic dermatitis with associated features of psoriasis)" | |
| Small uncontrolled short‐term and already reflected in results from main review | |
| Short‐term and already reflected in results from main review | |
| Follow‐up under 12 wks and not focused on adverse events | |
| Case study | |
| Adverse events not reported | |
| Short‐term (4 weeks) and brief mention of adverse events | |
| Short‐term, unclear if psoriasis, small numbers (N = 6) | |
| Participants were healthy volunteers | |
| Not about adverse events | |
| Not about adverse events |
| Study | Methods | Participants | Interventions | Outcomes (compliance | Summary findings | Notes | Allocation concealment |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study | N: 10 | Topical salicylic acid 6% | Medication adherence: | Medication adherence measured by method 1 (electronic) much lower than by method 2 (patient log) | Sponsorship not reported | D | |
| DESIGN: within‐patient | N: 30 | Topical salicylic acid 6% plus 0.1% tacrolimus ointment BD | Medication adherence: | Adherence decreased over time. On the intervention side, a decrease in adherence rate of 10% was associated with a 1‐point increase in severity (P < 0.05). For the placebo‐treated side, adherence was not significantly correlated with changes in severity. | Sponsored by Fujisawa Healthcare, Inc. and by Wake Forest University School of Medicine. | B | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study | N: 29 | 6% salicylic acid gel BD | Impact of office visits on participants' adherence to topical treatment. | Adherence statistically significantly higher at time of office visit. | Sponsored in part by Astellas Pharma US, Inc. | D | |
| DESIGN: between‐patient | N: 881 | Calcipotriol plus reinforcement programme | Reinforcement therapeutic programme to enhance adherence: dermatologist provided participant education with explanation of disease characteristics and treatment efficacy and application, plus written information card | The reinforcement programme had no effect on treatment efficacy | Sponsorship not reported | B | |
| DESIGN: questionnaire survey (observational cross‐sectional study) | N: 1281 | Any antipsoriatic therapy | Compliance measured against PMAQ‐3w scale (patient medication adherence questionnaire): strict adherence to prescribed regimen over previous 3 days and last weekend | 73% reported non‐compliance with current treatment | Sponsorship not reported. | D | |
| DESIGN: open uncontrolled study | N: 109 | Any prescribed antipsoriatic therapy | Medication adherence: number prescribed doses taken/number prescribed doses prescribed (see Zaghloul 2004). | Mean adherence for topical therapy: 72% (31%SD) | Findings relate to any treatment for psoriasis (not just topical therapy) | D | |
| DESIGN: questionnaire survey (cross‐sectional uncontrolled study) | N: 120 | Any antipsoriatic therapy | Per cent complying with treatment (self report): scale not reported | 39 per cent reported non‐compliance (sometimes/never complying) with prescribed treatment. The non‐compliant group had a higher self‐rated disease severity, were younger, and had a younger age at onset. | Sponsorship not reported | D | |
| DESIGN: questionnaire survey (uncontrolled study) BLINDING: NA | N: 972 | Any topical antipsoriatic therapy | Per cent complying with frequency of application of prescribed topical therapies | 29% of responders reported that the prescriber did not specify dosage frequency. | Sponsorship not reported. | D | |
| DESIGN: questionnaire survey (uncontrolled study) | N: 839 | Any antipsoriatic therapy including topical treatments, photo(chemo)therapy and systemic therapy | Per cent complying with duration of prescribed treatment (topical therapies) | Per cent complying with duration of prescribed treatment (topical therapies): 71% | Sponsorship not reported | D | |
| DESIGN: within‐patient (see Notes) | N: 976 | Calcipotriol cream OM plus calcipotriol ointment ON | Compliance: | At wk 3, 72% of participants applied the regimen on most days. By wk 8, this statistic had fallen to 61% | Sponsorship not reported | D | |
| DESIGN: uncontrolled study | N: 294 | Topical, oral, or combined antipsoriatic medication | Medication adherence: | Medication adherence measured by method 1 (objective) much lower than by method 2 (patient self report). Mean rate: 60.6% (33.0%SD); (range: 0% to169%) | Authors report no relevant financial interests | D | |
| per cent men: per cent male; AE(L): number local adverse events/number participants; AE(S): number systemic adverse events/number participants; AE: adverse events; BC: baseline comparability; BD: twice daily; BSA: body surface area; FU: follow up (includes TD); N: number enrolled; NA: not applicable; NR: not reported; OD: once daily; PASI: Psoriasis Area and Severity Index; PRN: as required; TD: treatment duration; TSS: Total Severity Score; WA: withdrawal due to adverse events | |||||||
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
| Adherence not assessed | |
| Treatment guideline (not primary study) | |
| Review/think piece | |
| Review | |
| Study focused on non‐responsive participants rather than those that are specifically non‐compliant | |
| Review | |
| Think piece (not primary study) |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol | 10 | 2287 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.93 [‐1.17, ‐0.68] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.3 Calcitriol | 6 | 1120 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.03 [‐1.71, ‐0.36] |
| 1.4 Tacalcitol | 2 | 433 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.84 [‐1.41, ‐0.26] |
| 1.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 103 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.43 [‐1.91, ‐0.96] |
| 1.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.66 [‐2.66, ‐0.67] |
| 1.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 121 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.22 [‐0.58, 0.14] |
| 1.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 119 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.67 [‐1.04, ‐0.30] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 19 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol | 10 | 1208 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.15 [‐1.41, ‐0.89] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 1 | 187 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.44, 0.14] |
| 2.3 Calcitriol | 4 | 1027 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.22 [‐2.38, ‐0.07] |
| 2.4 Tacalcitol | 3 | 496 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.66 [‐0.95, ‐0.36] |
| 2.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 103 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.61 [‐2.10, ‐1.12] |
| 2.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.15 [‐3.24, ‐1.06] |
| 2.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 121 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.37, 0.34] |
| 2.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 119 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.46 [‐0.83, ‐0.10] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 9 | 2422 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.58 [‐0.71, ‐0.45] |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol | 8 | 2195 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.65 [‐0.75, ‐0.55] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Tacalcitol | 1 | 227 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.27 [‐0.56, 0.03] |
| 3.5 Maxacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Paricalcitol OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 5 | 1467 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.54 [‐0.72, ‐0.36] |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol | 2 | 439 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.64 [‐0.97, ‐0.30] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Calcitriol | 2 | 801 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.59 [‐0.76, ‐0.41] |
| 4.4 Tacalcitol | 1 | 227 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.24 [‐0.53, 0.05] |
| 4.5 Maxacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Paricalcitol OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol | 17 | 3269 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.96 [‐1.15, ‐0.77] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 1 | 187 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.44, 0.14] |
| 5.3 Calcitriol | 7 | 1140 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.92 [‐1.54, ‐0.29] |
| 5.4 Tacalcitol | 4 | 723 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.73 [‐1.09, ‐0.37] |
| 5.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 103 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.43 [‐1.91, ‐0.96] |
| 5.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.66 [‐2.66, ‐0.67] |
| 5.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 121 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.22 [‐0.58, 0.14] |
| 5.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 119 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.67 [‐1.04, ‐0.30] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 25 | 4715 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.05, 0.00] |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol | 14 | 3132 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.06, 0.00] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.3 Calcitriol | 5 | 339 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 6.4 Tacalcitol | 4 | 857 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.14, 0.05] |
| 6.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [‐0.01, 0.23] |
| 6.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 6.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.12, 0.11] |
| 6.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 121 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.13, 0.10] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 23 | 4463 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol | 12 | 2880 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.04, 0.00] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.3 Calcitriol | 5 | 339 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 7.4 Tacalcitol | 4 | 857 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.01, 0.02] |
| 7.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.08, 0.06] |
| 7.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 7.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.02, 0.08] |
| 7.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 121 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.01, 0.11] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 14 | 2752 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.05, 0.00] |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol | 7 | 1770 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.08, 0.01] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Calcitriol | 4 | 281 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.12, 0.05] |
| 8.4 Tacalcitol | 1 | 314 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.11, 0.04] |
| 8.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 8.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.04] |
| 8.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 121 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.09, 0.02] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 19 | 4402 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.01, 0.02] |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol | 11 | 2652 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.3 Calcitriol | 4 | 917 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.02] |
| 9.4 Tacalcitol | 2 | 566 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 9.5 Maxacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 9.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.06, 0.08] |
| 9.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 121 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [0.00, 0.19] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 14 | 2463 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol | 8 | 1182 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Calcitriol | 3 | 647 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.4 Tacalcitol | 1 | 244 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10.5 Maxacalcitol | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 10.6 Paricalcitol OD | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 10.7 Becocalcidiol OD | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.8 Becocalcidiol twice daily | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 11 | 1904 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.00 [‐1.18, ‐0.82] |
| 1.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 2 | 739 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.81 [‐0.98, ‐0.64] |
| 1.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 4 | 537 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.35 [‐1.56, ‐1.15] |
| 1.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 74 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.41 [‐1.92, ‐0.90] |
| 1.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.6 Desonide | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.81 [‐1.34, ‐0.28] |
| 1.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.8 Fluticasone propionate | 2 | 383 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.93 [‐1.14, ‐0.72] |
| 1.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 95 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.75 [‐1.17, ‐0.34] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 7 | 611 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.77 [‐1.01, ‐0.52] |
| 2.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 1 | 93 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.74 [‐1.16, ‐0.32] |
| 2.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 33 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.77 [‐1.48, ‐0.06] |
| 2.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.95 [‐1.62, ‐0.27] |
| 2.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.09 [‐2.00, ‐0.18] |
| 2.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.6 Desonide | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.16 [‐1.70, ‐0.61] |
| 2.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 93 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.32 [‐0.73, 0.09] |
| 2.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 161 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.46 [‐0.77, ‐0.15] |
| 2.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 95 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.12 [‐1.55, ‐0.68] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 3 | 1158 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.97 [‐1.31, ‐0.62] |
| 3.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 2 | 739 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.79 [‐1.44, ‐0.14] |
| 3.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 419 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.21 [‐1.44, ‐0.97] |
| 3.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Desonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.10 Mometasone furoate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Desonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.10 Mometasone furoate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 15 | 2311 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.89 [‐1.06, ‐0.72] |
| 5.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 3 | 832 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.80 [‐0.96, ‐0.64] |
| 5.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 4 | 537 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.35 [‐1.56, ‐1.15] |
| 5.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.95 [‐1.62, ‐0.27] |
| 5.4 Betamethasone valerate | 2 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.33 [‐1.78, ‐0.89] |
| 5.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5.6 Desonide | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.81 [‐1.34, ‐0.28] |
| 5.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 93 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.32 [‐0.73, 0.09] |
| 5.8 Fluticasone propionate | 2 | 383 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.93 [‐1.14, ‐0.72] |
| 5.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 161 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.46 [‐0.77, ‐0.15] |
| 5.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 95 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.75 [‐1.17, ‐0.34] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 9 | 1673 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.14 [‐0.22, ‐0.05] |
| 6.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 2 | 756 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.16 [‐0.28, ‐0.04] |
| 6.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 421 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.12, 0.01] |
| 6.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 134 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐0.60, ‐0.30] |
| 6.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 6.5 Budesonide | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 6.6 Desonide | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.38, 0.02] |
| 6.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 180 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.09, 0.10] |
| 6.10 Mometasone furoate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 9 | 1292 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.02] |
| 7.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 1 | 633 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.11, ‐0.02] |
| 7.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 33 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 7.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 134 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.02, 0.17] |
| 7.5 Budesonide | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 7.6 Desonide | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.1 [‐0.24, 0.04] |
| 7.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 190 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.04] |
| 7.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.11, 0.01] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 6 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 8.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 130 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.46 [‐0.61, ‐0.31] |
| 8.4 Betamethasone valerate | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8.5 Budesonide | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 8.6 Desonide | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 8.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.8 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 190 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8.10 Mometasone furoate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 10 | 2117 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.08, ‐0.00] |
| 9.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 2 | 756 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.15, ‐0.04] |
| 9.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 2 | 454 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.12, 0.03] |
| 9.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 134 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 9.4 Betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.5 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.6 Desonide | 1 | 80 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 9.7 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.8 Fluticasone propionate | 1 | 383 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 9.9 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 1 | 190 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.18, 0.07] |
| 9.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.23, 0.02] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 4 | 675 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.1 Betamethasone dipropionate OD | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Betamethasone dipropionate twice daily | 1 | 421 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.3 Betamethasone dipropionate, maintenance | 2 | 134 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.07, 0.10] |
| 10.4 Budesonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Desonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.6 Diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.7 Fluticasone propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.8 Hydrocortisone buteprate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.9 Betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.10 Mometasone furoate | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 5 | 540 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.87 [‐2.38, ‐1.36] |
| 1.1 Clobetasol propionate | 4 | 471 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.89 [‐2.53, ‐1.24] |
| 1.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.3 Halobetasol | 1 | 69 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.81 [‐2.37, ‐1.24] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 3 | 545 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.35 [‐1.80, ‐0.89] |
| 2.1 Clobetasol propionate | 3 | 545 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.35 [‐1.80, ‐0.89] |
| 2.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.3 Halobetasol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.1 Clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Halobetasol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 3 | 487 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.22 [‐1.42, ‐1.02] |
| 4.1 Clobetasol propionate | 1 | 79 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.01 [‐1.55, ‐0.47] |
| 4.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Halobetasol | 2 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.25 [‐1.46, ‐1.04] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 10 | 1493 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.56 [‐1.87, ‐1.26] |
| 5.1 Clobetasol propionate | 7 | 1016 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.65 [‐2.10, ‐1.20] |
| 5.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5.3 Halobetasol | 3 | 477 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.36 [‐1.65, ‐1.07] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 8 | 1181 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.10, 0.01] |
| 6.1 Clobetasol propionate | 7 | 1037 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.13, 0.01] |
| 6.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.3 Halobetasol | 1 | 144 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 10 | 1601 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 7.1 Clobetasol propionate | 7 | 1037 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 7.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.3 Halobetasol | 3 | 564 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 8 | 1189 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 8.1 Clobetasol propionate | 6 | 845 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.01] |
| 8.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Halobetasol | 2 | 344 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 8 | 1265 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 9.1 Clobetasol propionate | 6 | 845 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 9.2 Halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.3 Halobetasol | 2 | 420 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 6 | 1056 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.1 Clobetasol propionate | 3 | 480 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Halcinonide | 1 | 156 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10.3 Halobetasol | 2 | 420 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 3 | 94 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.06 [‐1.66, ‐0.46] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 3 | 94 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.06 [‐1.66, ‐0.46] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 4 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | 104 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 2 | 44 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 3 | 94 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.26 [‐0.30, 0.82] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.35, 0.35] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 5 | 2264 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.44 [‐1.76, ‐1.12] |
| 1.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1416 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.21 [‐1.50, ‐0.91] |
| 1.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 848 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.90 [‐2.09, ‐1.71] |
| 2 TSS | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 5 | 2263 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.24 [‐1.53, ‐0.95] |
| 3.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1414 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.14 [‐1.57, ‐0.70] |
| 3.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 849 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.41 [‐1.86, ‐0.97] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 4.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 5 | 2264 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.44 [‐1.76, ‐1.12] |
| 5.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1416 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.21 [‐1.50, ‐0.91] |
| 5.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 848 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.90 [‐2.09, ‐1.71] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 5 | 2340 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.17, ‐0.07] |
| 6.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1483 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.22, ‐0.09] |
| 6.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 857 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.12, ‐0.03] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | 1723 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.11, ‐0.04] |
| 7.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 3 | 1280 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.11, ‐0.03] |
| 7.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 1 | 443 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.14, ‐0.05] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 1 | 802 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.12, ‐0.06] |
| 8.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 1 | 359 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.13, ‐0.05] |
| 8.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 1 | 443 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.13, ‐0.05] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 5 | 2334 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.08, ‐0.02] |
| 9.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 4 | 1479 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.11, ‐0.02] |
| 9.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 2 | 855 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.08, 0.01] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | 412 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.1 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, once daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Combination calcipotriol/betamethasone dipropionate, twice daily | 1 | 412 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 8 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 1.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.24 Tar | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.25 Tazarotene | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 17 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | 89 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.70 [‐1.13, ‐0.27] |
| 2.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.48 [‐0.81, ‐0.15] |
| 2.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.05 [‐1.64, ‐0.46] |
| 2.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.13 [‐1.91, ‐0.35] |
| 2.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 88 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.64 [‐2.13, ‐1.15] |
| 2.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 24 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.33 [‐0.48, 1.14] |
| 2.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 82 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.48 [‐0.92, ‐0.04] |
| 2.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.44 [‐2.67, ‐0.22] |
| 2.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.60, 0.75] |
| 2.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.20 [‐0.60, 0.20] |
| 2.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 1 | 42 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.77 [‐1.40, ‐0.14] |
| 2.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.59, 0.85] |
| 2.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.31 [‐3.26, ‐1.36] |
| 2.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 1 | 44 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.39 [‐0.98, 0.21] |
| 2.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 47 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [‐0.52, 0.63] |
| 2.24 Tar | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐1.11, 0.22] |
| 2.25 Tazarotene | 1 | 318 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.11, ‐0.62] |
| 2.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 3.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion, 30% | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.11 Kukui nut oil, twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.24 Tar | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.25 Tazarotene | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 4.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion, 30% | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.13 Methotrexate gel | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.24 Tar | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.25 Tazarotene | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.58 [‐2.16, ‐0.99] |
| 5.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | 89 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.59 [‐1.01, ‐0.16] |
| 5.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 81 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.76 [‐1.21, ‐0.31] |
| 5.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.39 [‐0.84, 0.06] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.48 [‐0.81, ‐0.15] |
| 5.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion, 30% | 1 | 19 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.57 [‐0.36, 1.51] |
| 5.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.05 [‐1.64, ‐0.46] |
| 5.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 1 | 24 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.96 [‐4.19, ‐1.74] |
| 5.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.62 [‐1.35, 0.12] |
| 5.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 88 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.09 [‐2.62, ‐1.56] |
| 5.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 24 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.80, 0.80] |
| 5.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 1 | 200 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.77 [‐1.06, ‐0.48] |
| 5.13 Methotrexate gel | 2 | 142 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.05 [‐2.04, ‐0.06] |
| 5.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.44 [‐2.67, ‐0.22] |
| 5.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.60, 0.75] |
| 5.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.20 [‐0.60, 0.20] |
| 5.17 Oleum horwathiensis (Psoricur®) | 1 | 42 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.63, 0.58] |
| 5.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | 80 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.50, 0.37] |
| 5.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.59, 0.85] |
| 5.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.31 [‐3.26, ‐1.36] |
| 5.22 Sirolimus (topical), 2.2% for 6 wks, then 8% for a further 6 wks | 1 | 44 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.39 [‐0.98, 0.21] |
| 5.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 47 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [‐0.52, 0.63] |
| 5.24 Tar | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐1.11, 0.22] |
| 5.25 Tazarotene | 1 | 318 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.11, ‐0.62] |
| 5.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.87 [‐4.13, ‐1.62] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 23 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 6.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 6.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.12, 0.08] |
| 6.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 6.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 6.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.08] |
| 6.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.25 [‐0.06, 0.56] |
| 6.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 6.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 6.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 112 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.15, 0.15] |
| 6.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.13 [‐0.42, 0.15] |
| 6.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 1 | 200 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.23 [‐0.32, ‐0.14] |
| 6.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 6.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 6.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 6.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08] |
| 6.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.16 [‐0.04, 0.36] |
| 6.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 1 | 146 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.15, 0.15] |
| 6.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | 104 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 6.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 6.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 6.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.25 Tazarotene | 2 | 1627 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.01, 0.09] |
| 6.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 19 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 7.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 7.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.07, 0.06] |
| 7.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 7.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.18, 0.35] |
| 7.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 7.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 7.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 112 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 7.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 7.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 7.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 7.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 7.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 1 | 146 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 7.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.25 Tazarotene | 2 | 1627 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.05, 0.10] |
| 7.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 18 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 8.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 8.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08] |
| 8.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.12, 0.29] |
| 8.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 8.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 8.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.13, 0.13] |
| 8.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 8.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 8.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 8.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 8.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 8.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 8.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 1 | 146 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 8.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.25 Tazarotene | 2 | 1627 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.04, 0.01] |
| 8.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 21 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 9.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 9.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 1 | 92 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.10, 0.14] |
| 9.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.07, 0.06] |
| 9.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 1 | 78 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.03, 0.13] |
| 9.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.02, 0.27] |
| 9.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.18, 0.35] |
| 9.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.06, 0.14] |
| 9.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 1 | 24 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.44, 0.27] |
| 9.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.06, 0.33] |
| 9.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 88 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 9.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 9.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 1 | 200 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.02] |
| 9.13 Methotrexate gel | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 9.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 1 | 14 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.24, 0.24] |
| 9.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 9.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.07, 0.28] |
| 9.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.06, 0.14] |
| 9.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 1 | 146 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.05] |
| 9.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | 104 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.19, 0.19] |
| 9.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 9.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.25 Tazarotene | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 1 | 22 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.16, 0.16] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 12 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 10.1 Aloe vera extract 0.5% hydrophilic cream, three times per day | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Anti‐IL‐8 monoclonal antibody cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Betamethasone 17‐valerate 21‐acetate plus tretinoin plus salicylic acid | 1 | 85 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 10.4 Caffeine (topical) 10%, TD | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcipotriene 0.005% ointment + nicotinamide 0.05% or 0.1% or 0.7% or 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.6 Dead Sea salts emollient lotion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.7 Fish oil plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.8 Herbal skin care (Dr Michaels® cleansing gel, ointment and skin conditioner), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.9 Hexafluoro‐1,25‐dihydroxyvitamin D3 | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 10.10 Indigo naturalis 1.4% ointment | 2 | 88 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 10.11 Kukui nut oil, TD | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.12 Mahonia aquifolium (Reliéva™), twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.13 Methotrexate gel | 2 | 166 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.14 Mycophenolic acid ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.15 NG‐monomethyl‐L‐arginine (L‐NMMA) cream | 1 | 34 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 10.16 Nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.17 Oleum horwathiensis | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 10.18 Omega‐3‐polyunsaturated fatty acids ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.19 Platelet aggregation activating factor (PAF)(Ro 24‐0238) | 1 | 104 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 10.20 Polymyxin B cream 200,000 U/g | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.21 PTH (1‐34) in Novasome A® liposomal cream, twice daily | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 10.22 Sirolimus (topical) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.23 Tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.24 Tar | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.25 Tazarotene | 2 | 414 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.26 Theophylline 1% ointment, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 8 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1728 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [0.28, 0.58] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 412 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.21, 0.17] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 256 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.02, 0.52] |
| 1.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 99 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.58 [‐0.99, ‐0.18] |
| 1.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.21 [‐0.04, 0.45] |
| 1.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.91, 0.53] |
| 1.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 6 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 684 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.26 [‐0.41, ‐0.11] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 256 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.40 [0.15, 0.65] |
| 2.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 89 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.50 [‐0.92, ‐0.07] |
| 2.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.02, 0.51] |
| 2.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 148 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [0.09, 0.74] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1728 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.36 [0.22, 0.51] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 4 | 1505 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.22, ‐0.02] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.15 [‐0.73, 1.02] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.39 [0.14, 0.63] |
| 3.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 2 | 1080 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.26 [‐0.38, ‐0.14] |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 1080 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.26 [‐0.38, ‐0.14] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 14 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1728 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [0.28, 0.58] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 4 | 1557 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.26, 0.02] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.15 [‐0.73, 1.02] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 256 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.02, 0.52] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 99 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.58 [‐0.99, ‐0.18] |
| 5.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.21 [‐0.04, 0.45] |
| 5.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.91, 0.53] |
| 5.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 148 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [0.09, 0.74] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 11 | 3995 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [0.00, 0.03] |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1739 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [0.01, 0.06] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 3 | 1520 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.01, 0.04] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 1 | 268 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 6.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.08, 0.03] |
| 6.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.10, 0.23] |
| 6.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 180 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 9 | 3058 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.00, 0.01] |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 956 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [0.00, 0.04] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 3 | 1520 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.00, 0.01] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.03] |
| 7.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.03] |
| 7.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.10, 0.23] |
| 7.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 180 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 5 | 1500 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 2 | 1099 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 113 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05] |
| 8.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 30 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.12, 0.12] |
| 8.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 9 | 3778 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.02, 0.11] |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1739 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.04, 0.09] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 3 | 1516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.12 [‐0.02, 0.26] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 1 | 113 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.02, 0.22] |
| 9.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.05, 0.06] |
| 9.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 152 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.07, 0.04] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 6 | 2547 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 621 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 3 | 1516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol vs. desoxymetasone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Calcipotriol vs. diflorasone diacetate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcipotriol vs. fluocinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.6 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 258 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.04, 0.03] |
| 10.7 Calcitriol vs. betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.8 Tacalcitol vs. betamethasone valerate | 1 | 152 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 TSS | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 2 | 82 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.57, 0.44] |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 2 | 82 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.57, 0.44] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. Clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 4 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1926 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.40 [‐0.52, ‐0.27] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.69 [‐1.22, ‐0.15] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 3 | 1876 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.44 [‐0.55, ‐0.33] |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1876 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.44 [‐0.55, ‐0.33] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1926 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.40 [‐0.52, ‐0.27] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 122 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.45 [0.09, 0.81] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.69 [‐1.22, ‐0.15] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 5 | 2135 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1948 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 122 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 65 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 2 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 3 | 1946 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.00, 0.04] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 122 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.13, 0.06] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol + betamethasone dipropionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol + clobetasol propionate vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 4 | 994 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.43 [‐0.85, ‐0.01] |
| 1.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.51 [0.13, 0.88] |
| 1.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 4 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 2 | 210 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.54 [‐1.16, 0.08] |
| 2.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.24, 0.50] |
| 2.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | 84 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.60, 0.25] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 3 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 2 | 544 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.90, 0.80] |
| 4.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 8 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 6 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 7 | 615 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.01] |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 5 | 417 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.07, 0.04] |
| 6.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.25, 0.06] |
| 6.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | 84 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.16, 0.11] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 7 | 1265 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.06, ‐0.00] |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 6 | 1151 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.06, 0.00] |
| 7.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.13, 0.02] |
| 7.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 5 | 788 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 4 | 674 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.08, 0.04] |
| 8.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 9 | 1543 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.32 [‐0.43, ‐0.20] |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 7 | 1345 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.25 [‐0.32, ‐0.17] |
| 9.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.67 [‐0.80, ‐0.54] |
| 9.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | 84 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.36 [‐0.52, ‐0.20] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 4 | 746 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. dithranol | 2 | 548 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Calcitriol vs. dithranol | 1 | 114 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.3 Tacalcitol vs. dithranol | 1 | 84 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 3 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 246 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.25, 0.25] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 226 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.47 [‐0.73, ‐0.21] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 52 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [‐0.12, 0.98] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 3 | 589 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.31 [‐0.55, ‐0.06] |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 250 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.32 [‐0.57, ‐0.07] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 287 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐0.68, ‐0.22] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 52 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.41, 0.68] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 4 | 539 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.62, 0.27] |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 2 | 261 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.41 [‐1.46, 0.64] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 226 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.47 [‐0.73, ‐0.21] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 52 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [‐0.12, 0.98] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 3 | 334 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08] |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 2 | 274 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.09] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | 334 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.01, 0.06] |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 2 | 274 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.07] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 3 | 334 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 2 | 274 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.08, 0.07] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 2 | 537 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.05, 0.12] |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 250 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.01, 0.14] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 287 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.09, 0.07] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 3 | 597 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 250 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol vs. tacalcitol | 1 | 287 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol vs. maxacalcitol | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 11 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 1 | 154 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.56 [0.23, 0.88] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 2 | 1194 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.31, 1.02] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 377 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.06, 0.48] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 3 | 1804 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.40, 0.93] |
| 1.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 2 | 510 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [‐0.19, 0.74] |
| 1.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 1 | 344 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.05, 0.48] |
| 1.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.88 [0.34, 1.42] |
| 1.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.14 [‐0.06, 0.33] |
| 1.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 334 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.48 [0.26, 0.70] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 16 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 1 | 124 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.46 [0.10, 0.82] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 2 | 1191 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.67 [0.23, 1.11] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 4 | 1204 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.52 [0.38, 0.67] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 3 | 1744 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.64 [0.46, 0.83] |
| 3.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 2 | 515 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [‐0.07, 0.93] |
| 3.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 1 | 344 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.17 [‐0.04, 0.38] |
| 3.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 1 | 116 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.29, 0.44] |
| 3.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.53 [‐0.11, 1.18] |
| 3.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.11, 0.28] |
| 3.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 1 | 142 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [‐0.09, 0.57] |
| 3.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 334 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.47 [0.25, 0.69] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 2 | 399 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.49 [0.29, 0.69] |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.70 [0.16, 1.23] |
| 4.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 334 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.46 [0.24, 0.68] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 17 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMD ON | 1 | 154 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.56 [0.23, 0.88] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 2 | 1194 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.31, 1.02] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 4 | 1204 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.43 [0.20, 0.66] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD twice daily | 3 | 1804 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.40, 0.93] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, BMV ON | 2 | 510 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [‐0.19, 0.74] |
| 5.6 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, clobetasone butyrate ON | 1 | 344 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.05, 0.48] |
| 5.7 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol twice daily + clobetasol propionate twice daily | 1 | 65 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.88 [0.34, 1.42] |
| 5.8 Calcipotriol twice daily vs. calcipotriol OM, diflucortolone valerate ON | 1 | 116 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.29, 0.44] |
| 5.9 Calcipotriol OD vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.53 [‐0.11, 1.18] |
| 5.10 Calcipotriol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + hydrocortisone OD | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.14 [‐0.06, 0.33] |
| 5.11 Calcitriol twice daily vs. diflucortolone valerate OM, calcitriol ON | 1 | 142 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [‐0.09, 0.57] |
| 5.12 Tacalcitol OD vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD OD | 1 | 334 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.48 [0.26, 0.70] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 15 | 5494 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [0.02, 0.05] |
| 6.1 Talcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 13 | 4985 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [0.01, 0.05] |
| 6.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 142 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.08, 0.10] |
| 6.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 367 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.01, 0.11] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 13 | 4081 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [0.01, 0.03] |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 11 | 3572 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [0.01, 0.03] |
| 7.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 142 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.02, 0.07] |
| 7.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 367 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.03] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 7 | 1925 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.00, 0.02] |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 7 | 1925 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.00, 0.02] |
| 8.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 15 | 5581 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.05, 0.08] |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 13 | 5084 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.04, 0.08] |
| 9.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 131 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [0.02, 0.19] |
| 9.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 366 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.02, 0.15] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 6 | 2099 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 5 | 1968 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.2 Calcitriol vs. calcitriol and corticosteroid | 1 | 131 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.3 Tacalcitol vs. calcipotriol and corticosteroid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 7 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 577 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.29, 0.04] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 585 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.04, 0.29] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 92 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.60 [0.18, 1.02] |
| 1.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2wks) | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [‐0.05, 0.86] |
| 1.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.54, 0.16] |
| 1.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.12, 0.41] |
| 1.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.51 [0.37, 0.66] |
| 1.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.26 [0.11, 0.40] |
| 1.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 596 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [0.08, 0.40] |
| 1.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 493 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.54 [0.36, 0.72] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 92 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.63 [0.21, 1.05] |
| 2.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 8 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 649 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.19, 0.11] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 143 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.29 [‐0.04, 0.62] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 650 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.05, 0.25] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.01, 1.32] |
| 3.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 1.13 [0.64, 1.62] |
| 3.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.27 [‐0.62, 0.09] |
| 3.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.25 [0.10, 0.39] |
| 3.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.59 [0.45, 0.74] |
| 3.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.30 [0.16, 0.45] |
| 3.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 645 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.15 [‐0.01, 0.30] |
| 3.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.49 [0.31, 0.67] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 4 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 577 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.14 [‐0.30, 0.02] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 585 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.06, 0.26] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.28 [0.13, 0.42] |
| 4.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.71 [0.56, 0.85] |
| 4.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.44 [0.29, 0.58] |
| 4.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 596 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.23 [0.07, 0.39] |
| 4.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 493 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.54 [0.36, 0.72] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 577 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.29, 0.04] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 143 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.29 [‐0.04, 0.62] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 585 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.13 [‐0.04, 0.29] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 92 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.60 [0.18, 1.02] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.66 [0.01, 1.32] |
| 5.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [‐0.05, 0.86] |
| 5.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.54, 0.16] |
| 5.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.27 [0.12, 0.41] |
| 5.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.51 [0.37, 0.66] |
| 5.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.26 [0.11, 0.40] |
| 5.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 596 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [0.08, 0.40] |
| 5.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 493 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.54 [0.36, 0.72] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 9 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 649 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [0.00, 0.10] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.09, 0.17] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 649 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [0.03, 0.13] |
| 6.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 98 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 6.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10] |
| 6.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 6.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.12, 0.11] |
| 6.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [0.03, 0.14] |
| 6.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.06, 0.17] |
| 6.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.07] |
| 6.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 644 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.07] |
| 6.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.01, 0.12] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 8 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.09, 0.01] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 98 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10] |
| 7.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 7.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.03] |
| 7.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 759 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.01, 0.02] |
| 7.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 753 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 7.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 760 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.01] |
| 7.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.01, 0.05] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 6 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.21 [0.10, 0.33] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 98 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 8.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10] |
| 8.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.04, 0.10] |
| 8.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy)+ combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [0.02, 0.08] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 8 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 649 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.06, 0.17] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 649 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.05, 0.17] |
| 9.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 98 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.08, 0.12] |
| 9.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 9.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 1 | 76 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.26 [0.07, 0.45] |
| 9.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 1 | 125 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.10, 0.06] |
| 9.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 1 | 752 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.07, 0.02] |
| 9.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 743 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05] |
| 9.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 749 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.00, 0.08] |
| 9.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 1 | 644 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.04] |
| 9.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | 501 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.01, 0.11] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol (12 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. clobetasol propionate (2 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. calcipotriol OM, fluocinonide acetonide ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.6 Calcipotriol (6 wks) vs. halometasone OM, calcipotriol ON (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (w/dy), halometasone (w/e) (2 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (2 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.7 Calcipotriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcipotriol twice daily (to wk 12) vs. calcitriol ON, clobetasol propionate OM (2 to 4 wks); then calcitriol twice daily (to wk 12) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.8 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.9 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then placebo ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.10 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol ointment twice daily (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) + combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.11 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (8 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (w/dy) & combined calcipotriol + BMD (w/e) (8 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.12 Tacalcitol (8 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 1.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 TSS | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 5.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 5.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 6.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 6.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 6.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 7.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 7.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 8.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 8.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 9.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 9.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 10.1 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Combined calcipotriol + BMD (52 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Alternating: combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (4 wks) vs. combined calcipotriol + BMD (4 wks); then calcipotriol (48 wks) | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 10 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 3 | 139 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.53 [‐1.74, 0.68] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 209 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.59 [‐0.87, ‐0.31] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 200 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.33, 0.22] |
| 1.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.7 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.8 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.22 [‐0.60, 0.16] |
| 1.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.55 [‐1.33, 0.24] |
| 1.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 2 | 728 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.24 [‐0.38, ‐0.09] |
| 1.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 7 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 132 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.51 [‐0.86, ‐0.16] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.49, 0.31] |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol+nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.19 [‐0.14, 0.52] |
| 2.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 2 | 171 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.35 [‐1.51, 0.81] |
| 2.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 199 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.33, 0.23] |
| 2.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 2 | 247 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐2.04, 1.68] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 2 | 109 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐1.54, 1.35] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 87 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.63 [‐1.06, ‐0.20] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.36, 0.26] |
| 3.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 27 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.24 [‐3.23, ‐1.25] |
| 3.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.78, 0.75] |
| 3.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 989 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.12 [‐0.25, 0.00] |
| 3.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 6 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 1 | 54 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.51 [‐2.12, ‐0.90] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 87 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.56 [‐0.99, ‐0.13] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 186 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.49 [‐0.79, ‐0.20] |
| 4.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.13 [‐0.51, 0.24] |
| 4.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.35 [‐0.99, 0.29] |
| 4.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.55 [‐1.33, 0.24] |
| 4.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 19 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 3 | 139 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.53 [‐1.74, 0.68] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 209 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.59 [‐0.87, ‐0.31] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.49, 0.31] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.19 [‐0.14, 0.52] |
| 5.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 2 | 360 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.26, 0.15] |
| 5.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 27 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.24 [‐3.23, ‐1.25] |
| 5.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 2 | 171 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.55 [‐1.28, 0.17] |
| 5.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 2 | 237 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.35, 0.16] |
| 5.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.55 [‐1.33, 0.24] |
| 5.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 988 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.20 [‐0.32, ‐0.07] |
| 5.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 2 | 247 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐2.04, 1.68] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 15 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 2 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.12, 0.08] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 220 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.10, 0.04] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.05, 0.09] |
| 6.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.06, 0.07] |
| 6.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.09, 0.17] |
| 6.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.16, 0.30] |
| 6.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.13 [‐0.25, ‐0.01] |
| 6.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 2 | 254 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.10, 0.01] |
| 6.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.15, 0.08] |
| 6.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 6.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 1001 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.03, 0.05] |
| 6.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 15 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 2 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.04, 0.06] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 210 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.03] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 7.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.00, 0.10] |
| 7.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.16, 0.30] |
| 7.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.08, 0.11] |
| 7.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 2 | 254 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.16, 0.05] |
| 7.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.10, 0.07] |
| 7.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 7.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 998 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.01, 0.02] |
| 7.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 12 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 88 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.06, 0.07] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 8.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.02] |
| 8.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.25, 0.11] |
| 8.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.07, 0.03] |
| 8.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 208 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 8.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 1 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 8.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 8.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 3 | 998 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 8.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 11 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 9.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 2 | 120 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.06, 0.10] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 122 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [‐0.09, 0.20] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 1 | 96 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.32, 0.03] |
| 9.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide (0.05%, 0.1%, 0.7%, or 1.4%), twice daily | 1 | 192 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.30, ‐0.03] |
| 9.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.02, 0.15] |
| 9.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.25, 0.11] |
| 9.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.37, ‐0.01] |
| 9.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 204 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.11, 0.06] |
| 9.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 1 | 26 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.23 [‐0.06, 0.52] |
| 9.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 2 | 731 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.06, 0.05] |
| 9.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 8 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar | 1 | 60 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 88 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol vs. nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + nicotinamide 1.4%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcipotriol vs. corticosteroid + salicylic acid | 1 | 160 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.02, 0.02] |
| 10.6 Calcipotriol vs. propylthiouracil cream | 1 | 28 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.13, 0.13] |
| 10.7 Calcipotriol vs. tacrolimus ointment | 1 | 124 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.04, 0.04] |
| 10.8 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene | 1 | 183 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.03] |
| 10.9 Calcipotriol vs. tazarotene gel plus mometasone furoate cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.10 Calcipotriol vs. vitamin B12 cream | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.11 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: twice daily vs OD | 1 | 264 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.12 Head‐to‐head vitamin D alone or in combination: no occlusion vs. occlusion | 1 | 38 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.10, 0.10] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 1.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 1.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 2.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 2.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 3.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 3.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 1 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 4.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 1 | 47 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.65 [‐1.24, ‐0.06] |
| 4.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐2.83 [‐3.79, ‐1.88] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 38 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.08 [‐1.77, ‐0.40] |
| 5.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 2 | 86 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.30, ‐0.41] |
| 5.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 6.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.08, 0.28] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.14, 0.14] |
| 6.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 2 | 97 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.16, 0.04] |
| 6.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | 167 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.30, ‐0.03] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 7.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 2 | 97 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.05, 0.05] |
| 7.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | 167 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.06, 0.03] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 8.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.18, 0.08] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.18, 0.08] |
| 8.3 Pimecrolimus cream, 1% OD/twice daily | 2 | 97 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.13, 0.04] |
| 8.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | 167 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.11 [‐0.19, ‐0.02] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 9.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.18, 0.08] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.11, 0.21] |
| 9.3 Pimecrolimus cream 1%, OD/twice daily | 2 | 97 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [‐0.15, 0.31] |
| 9.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | 167 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.30, ‐0.03] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Totals not selected | |
| 10.1 Betamethasone valerate 0.1%, OD | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol ointment, OD | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.3 Pimecrolimus cream 1%, OD/twice daily | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| 10.4 Tacrolimus ointment 0.1%, twice daily | 1 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] | |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.30 [0.11, 0.50] |
| 1.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 49 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.42 [‐0.15, 0.98] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.61 [0.28, 0.94] |
| 2.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 49 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.29 [‐0.27, 0.85] |
| 3 PASI Show forest plot | 2 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 2.02 [1.20, 2.84] |
| 3.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.32 [0.12, 0.51] |
| 3.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 39 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.53 [‐1.17, 0.11] |
| 3.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 4.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 4 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 36 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 2.02 [1.20, 2.84] |
| 5.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.30 [0.11, 0.50] |
| 5.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.61 [0.28, 0.94] |
| 5.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 39 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.53 [‐1.17, 0.11] |
| 5.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 49 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.42 [‐0.15, 0.98] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 6.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.28, 0.08] |
| 6.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.03, 0.11] |
| 6.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 6.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.08, 0.18] |
| 6.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.12 [‐0.02, 0.26] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 7.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.02, 0.11] |
| 7.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.01, 0.18] |
| 7.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 7.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 8.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 8.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 408 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.01, 0.05] |
| 8.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 8.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.09, 0.09] |
| 8.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 1 | 50 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.07, 0.07] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 3 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 9.1 calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.10 [‐0.05, 0.25] |
| 9.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 1 | 404 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.15 [0.08, 0.23] |
| 9.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 1 | 150 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.02, 0.17] |
| 9.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.38, 0.08] |
| 9.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 10.1 Calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.2 Calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + hydrocortisone | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.3 Calcipotriol vs. calcitriol | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Calcipotriol vs. pimecrolimus | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Calcitriol vs. tacrolimus | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 457 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.72 [‐1.28, ‐0.16] |
| 1.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 712 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.09 [‐1.29, ‐0.90] |
| 1.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 132 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.42 [‐1.80, ‐1.04] |
| 1.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 2 | 458 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.73 [‐1.99, ‐1.48] |
| 1.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 54 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.11 [‐1.69, ‐0.53] |
| 1.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 854 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.97 [‐1.61, ‐0.32] |
| 1.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.48 [‐2.50, ‐0.47] |
| 1.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 84 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.22 [‐1.69, ‐0.76] |
| 1.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.79, 0.06] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 11 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 457 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.44 [‐0.64, ‐0.25] |
| 2.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 712 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.00 [‐1.19, ‐0.81] |
| 2.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 1 | 172 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.40 [‐1.75, ‐1.05] |
| 2.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 126 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.58 [‐1.98, ‐1.18] |
| 2.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 3 | 707 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.53 [‐1.77, ‐1.28] |
| 2.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 2.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 854 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.92 [‐1.42, ‐0.43] |
| 2.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.15 [‐2.11, ‐0.19] |
| 2.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 37 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.82, 0.68] |
| 2.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 84 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.89 [‐1.34, ‐0.44] |
| 2.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.57 [‐1.47, 0.32] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 4.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 450 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.66 [‐1.28, ‐0.05] |
| 4.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 685 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.23 [‐1.43, ‐1.03] |
| 4.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 132 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.97 [‐1.33, ‐0.61] |
| 4.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 841 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.00 [‐1.79, ‐0.22] |
| 4.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 37 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.11 [‐0.86, 0.64] |
| 4.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 13 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 457 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.72 [‐1.28, ‐0.16] |
| 5.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 712 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.09 [‐1.29, ‐0.90] |
| 5.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 1 | 172 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.40 [‐1.75, ‐1.05] |
| 5.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 132 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.42 [‐1.80, ‐1.04] |
| 5.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 4 | 788 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.57 [‐1.81, ‐1.34] |
| 5.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 54 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.11 [‐1.69, ‐0.53] |
| 5.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 854 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.97 [‐1.61, ‐0.32] |
| 5.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.48 [‐2.50, ‐0.47] |
| 5.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 37 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.82, 0.68] |
| 5.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 84 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐1.22 [‐1.69, ‐0.76] |
| 5.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.86 [‐1.79, 0.06] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 13 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 6.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 3 | 517 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.02 [‐0.08, 0.05] |
| 6.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 692 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.14 [‐0.21, ‐0.06] |
| 6.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 165 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.11, 0.11] |
| 6.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 5 | 1006 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.10, 0.04] |
| 6.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 58 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.13, 0.13] |
| 6.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 854 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.16, ‐0.03] |
| 6.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 6.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.15 [‐0.38, 0.09] |
| 6.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 89 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.13, 0.04] |
| 6.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 13 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 7.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 3 | 517 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.02, 0.05] |
| 7.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 712 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.08, ‐0.00] |
| 7.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 1 | 172 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 7.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 165 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.04] |
| 7.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 5 | 1006 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 7.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 58 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.06, 0.06] |
| 7.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 1 | 677 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.04 [‐0.08, 0.00] |
| 7.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 7.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.42, 0.05] |
| 7.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 7.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 9 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 8.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 2 | 457 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.05 [‐0.11, 0.00] |
| 8.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 692 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.10 [‐0.16, ‐0.05] |
| 8.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 1 | 165 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.02] |
| 8.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 5 | 1006 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.05, 0.02] |
| 8.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 1 | 677 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.11 [‐0.17, ‐0.06] |
| 8.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.09 [‐0.28, 0.10] |
| 8.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 8.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 12 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 9.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 3 | 510 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.05, 0.04] |
| 9.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 2 | 703 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.07 [‐0.13, ‐0.01] |
| 9.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 4 | 817 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.00 [‐0.03, 0.04] |
| 9.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 1 | 58 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.03 [‐0.12, 0.06] |
| 9.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 831 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.13, 0.02] |
| 9.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 9.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 1 | 40 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.06 [‐0.24, 0.13] |
| 9.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 1 | 89 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.02 [‐0.04, 0.08] |
| 9.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 1 | 20 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.17, 0.17] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 4 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 10.1 Vitamin D: calcipotriol | 1 | 408 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.2 Potent steroid: betamethasone dipropionate | 1 | 692 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.3 Potent steroid: betamethasone valerate | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.4 Very potent steroid: amcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.5 Very potent steroid: clobetasol propionate | 2 | 385 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.03, 0.02] |
| 10.6 Very potent steroid: halcinonide | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.7 Vitamin D in combination: calcipotriol + BMD | 2 | 843 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.8 Other treatment: betamethasone‐17,21‐dipropionate plus salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.9 Other treatment: ciclopirox olamine shampoo | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.10 Other treatment: fluocinolone acetonide, plus occlusion | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 10.11 Other treatment: salicylic acid | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| Outcome or subgroup title | No. of studies | No. of participants | Statistical method | Effect size |
| 1 IAGI Show forest plot | 9 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 1.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.48 [0.32, 0.64] |
| 1.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 510 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.37 [0.20, 0.55] |
| 1.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 1.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.26, ‐0.10] |
| 1.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2581 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.64 [0.44, 0.84] |
| 1.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 2 | 748 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.24 [‐0.73, 0.25] |
| 2 TSS Show forest plot | 10 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 2.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.45 [0.28, 0.63] |
| 2.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 487 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [‐0.09, 0.27] |
| 2.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 151 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.37 [0.05, 0.69] |
| 2.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.19 [‐0.27, ‐0.11] |
| 2.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 3 | 1978 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.70 [0.56, 0.84] |
| 2.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 3 | 925 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.30 [‐0.84, 0.24] |
| 3 PASI | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 3.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 3.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4 PAGI Show forest plot | 5 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 4.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1654 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.56 [0.31, 0.81] |
| 4.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 468 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.41 [0.22, 0.59] |
| 4.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 4.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2414 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.17 [‐0.25, ‐0.09] |
| 4.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 3 | 1952 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.84 [0.61, 1.08] |
| 4.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 0 | 0 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 5 Combined end point (IAGI/TSS/PASI/PAGI) Show forest plot | 11 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 5.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.48 [0.32, 0.64] |
| 5.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 510 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.37 [0.20, 0.55] |
| 5.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 151 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.37 [0.05, 0.69] |
| 5.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.18 [‐0.26, ‐0.10] |
| 5.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2581 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | 0.64 [0.44, 0.84] |
| 5.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 3 | 835 | Std. Mean Difference (IV, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.45 [‐0.92, 0.02] |
| 6 Total withdrawals Show forest plot | 10 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 6.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [‐0.04, 0.18] |
| 6.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.00, 0.08] |
| 6.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 2 | 194 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.07, 0.18] |
| 6.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.04, 0.06] |
| 6.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2847 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.11 [0.05, 0.18] |
| 6.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 475 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.07, 0.09] |
| 7 Withdrawals due to adverse events Show forest plot | 10 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 7.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.04 [‐0.01, 0.09] |
| 7.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [0.01, 0.06] |
| 7.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 2 | 194 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [‐0.05, 0.15] |
| 7.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 7.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2847 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.06 [0.02, 0.09] |
| 7.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 445 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.08 [0.02, 0.14] |
| 8 Withdrawals due to treatment failure Show forest plot | 8 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 8.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1676 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.03 [‐0.01, 0.07] |
| 8.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.01, 0.03] |
| 8.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 2 | 194 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.01 [‐0.02, 0.04] |
| 8.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2444 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.01 [‐0.02, ‐0.00] |
| 8.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 3 | 2535 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.05 [0.01, 0.10] |
| 8.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 0 | 0 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [0.0, 0.0] |
| 9 Adverse events (local) Show forest plot | 10 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 9.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1652 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.07 [0.04, 0.11] |
| 9.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 2 | 516 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.17 [0.01, 0.33] |
| 9.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 2 | 194 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.19 [0.10, 0.28] |
| 9.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 3 | 2415 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | ‐0.00 [‐0.02, 0.01] |
| 9.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 4 | 2801 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.09 [0.06, 0.12] |
| 9.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 445 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.24 [0.15, 0.33] |
| 10 Adverse events (systemic) Show forest plot | 6 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | Subtotals only | |
| 10.1 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMD | 2 | 1666 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.2 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (potent): calcipotriol vs. BMV | 1 | 474 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
| 10.3 Vitamin D vs. corticosteroid (very potent): calcipotriol vs. clobetasol propionate | 1 | 151 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.03, 0.03] |
| 10.4 Vitamin D + corticosteroid vs. corticosteroid: calcipotriol + BMD vs. BMD | 2 | 2216 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.5 Vitamin D vs. vitamin D + corticosteroid: calcipotriol vs. calcipotriol + BMD | 3 | 1970 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.00, 0.00] |
| 10.6 Vitamin D vs. other treatments: calcipotriol vs. coal tar polytherapy | 1 | 445 | Risk Difference (M‐H, Random, 95% CI) | 0.0 [‐0.01, 0.01] |
