Summary of findings 1. IFN‐α + PUVA compared to PUVA alone for mycosis fungoides.

IFN‐α + PUVA compared to PUVA alone for mycosis fungoides
Patient or population: people with mycosis fungoides Setting: tertiary care setting Intervention: IFN‐α + PUVA Comparison: PUVA alone Number of trials included: 2 (Stadler 2006; Wozniak 2008)
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	№ of participants (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with PUVA alone	Risk with IFN‐α + PUVA
Improvement of quality of life	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Not measured
Common adverse effects	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Not measured
Complete response (CR) assessed with: outcome assessment not described Time point of measurement Stadler 2006: up to week 52 Wozniak 2008: up to week 24	Study population		RR 1.07 (0.87 to 1.31)	122 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ Low a	‐
	731 per 1000	783 per 1000 (636 to 958)
Objective response rate (ORR)	‐	‐	‐	‐	‐	Not measured
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). The assumed risk is based on the number of events/number of participants in the control groups in Analysis 5.1. CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect. Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different. Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited; the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect. Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate; the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

^a Downgraded by two levels to low‐certainty evidence. One level because of low internal validity (risk of bias ‐ performance bias in both studies, attrition bias in Stadler 2006) and one level because of low sample size (imprecision)