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.