The practice of medicine was revolutionized in 1992 with the introduction of the concept of evidence-based medicine.1 Since the advent of this movement, systematic reviews and meta-analyses not only have become popular but also have steered the development of clinical practice guidelines and supported justification of further research by granting agencies.2 By summarizing available data and comparing the effectiveness of multiple treatment alternatives, systematic reviews provide a high level of evidence quality on the clinical benefits and harms of interventions, which is highly desired in health care decision-making. However, inconsistency in the quantification of an outcome across trials deters the pooled estimation of the measure of effect. This lack of outcome uniformity is evident in the literature pertaining to interventions for actinic keratosis, hindering cross-trial comparisons of treatments and the identification of the most effective therapies.
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Gupta AK, Martin G, Renaud HJ. A Step Toward Standardizing Clinical Trials of Actinic Keratosis. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(3):255–257. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2019.4210
Coronavirus Resource Center
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: