Conflicts of interest D. de B., none; J.M.M. has received an honorarium from 3M as an invited member of an advisory board for the treatment of actinic keratoses; B.R.H., none.
Guidelines for the management of actinic keratoses
Article first published online: 12 JAN 2007
British Journal of Dermatology
Volume 156, Issue 2, pages 222–230, February 2007
How to Cite
De Berker, D., McGregor, J.M., Hughes, B.R. and on behalf of the British Association of Dermatologists Therapy Guidelines and Audit Subcommittee (2007), Guidelines for the management of actinic keratoses. British Journal of Dermatology, 156: 222–230. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2133.2006.07692.x
Members of the British Association of Dermatologists Therapy Guidelines and Audit Subcommittee are: A.D. Ormerod (Chairman), D.J. Eedy, D. Mitchell, F. Humphreys, J. Peters, R. Bull, H. Bell, M. Kouimtzi and S. Jones.
- Issue published online: 12 JAN 2007
- Article first published online: 12 JAN 2007
- Accepted for publication 21 May 2006
Vol. 158, Issue 4, 873, Article first published online: 18 MAR 2008
- actinic keratosis;
These guidelines stemmed from a consensus meeting held by the British Photobiology Group (BPG) in 1999. Following this meeting one of the authors (J.M.M.) was invited to draw up guidelines for the management of actinic keratoses by the British Association of Dermatologists Therapy Guidelines and Audit Subcommittee. Relevant evidence was sought using the search terms ‘solar keratosis’ and ‘actinic keratosis’ in Medline from 1966 onwards. Additional and earlier literature was reviewed on the basis of references within post-1966 publications. All articles of apparent relevance were reviewed independently of the nature of the publication. The quality of the evidence elicited has been indicated. The National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey (U.S.A.) was used for further data on topical chemotherapy. Papers were reviewed and discussed by the contributors to the BPG Workshop (see Acknowledgments). Recommendations are evidence based where possible. Strength of recommendation is coupled with quality of evidence. Strength of recommendation includes consideration of apparent cost-benefit and practical considerations. Quality of evidence reflects the nature of the trial structure that provides data of efficacy.