对脱发症临床医生报告结果的评估:系统性范围审查。

IF 3.7 4区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY
Emadodin Darchini-Maragheh, Anthony Moussa, Huw Rees, Leslie Jones, Laita Bokhari, Rodney Sinclair
{"title":"对脱发症临床医生报告结果的评估:系统性范围审查。","authors":"Emadodin Darchini-Maragheh, Anthony Moussa, Huw Rees, Leslie Jones, Laita Bokhari, Rodney Sinclair","doi":"10.1093/ced/llae320","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinROMs) are an important part of disease assessment in daily practice and clinical trials. There is a broad disagreement on the most appropriate ClinROM for a comprehensive assessment of alopecia areata (AA) severity. This paper aims to identify the currently available ClinROMs for AA through a systematic literature search, address their practical strengths and weaknesses, and identify the road ahead for future research. A search was conducted of the published, peer-reviewed literature via PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE (via Ovid) databases. Articles published in English within the last 23 years (post-2000) that objectively measured AA severity were included. We did not select scoring systems that were solely based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The literature search identified 1376 articles, of which 27 were chosen for full-text review. Based on our eligibility criteria, fourteen articles were identified, describing sixteen different ClinROMs. Five ClinROMs solely measured scalp hair loss (SALT, SALTⅡ, ALODEX, pSALT, and AA-IGA). Three trichoscopy-based ClinROMs assessed disease activity (AAPI, AAPS, and Coudability hair score). Six ClinROMs exclusively assessed non-scalp areas (BETA, BELA, ALBAS, ClinRO for Eyelash, Eyebrow, and Nail assessment). Two ClinROMs assessed both the scalp and beyond-scalp areas (AASI and AASc). The practical strengths and weaknesses of each assessment tool were described. Various practical limitations associated with established tools have impeded their universal implementation in routine clinical practice. There is a significant need for a holistic clinical severity scoring system to capture all the key severity identifiers beyond the involvement of the scalp.</p>","PeriodicalId":10324,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures for Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Scoping Review.\",\"authors\":\"Emadodin Darchini-Maragheh, Anthony Moussa, Huw Rees, Leslie Jones, Laita Bokhari, Rodney Sinclair\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ced/llae320\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinROMs) are an important part of disease assessment in daily practice and clinical trials. There is a broad disagreement on the most appropriate ClinROM for a comprehensive assessment of alopecia areata (AA) severity. This paper aims to identify the currently available ClinROMs for AA through a systematic literature search, address their practical strengths and weaknesses, and identify the road ahead for future research. A search was conducted of the published, peer-reviewed literature via PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE (via Ovid) databases. Articles published in English within the last 23 years (post-2000) that objectively measured AA severity were included. We did not select scoring systems that were solely based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The literature search identified 1376 articles, of which 27 were chosen for full-text review. Based on our eligibility criteria, fourteen articles were identified, describing sixteen different ClinROMs. Five ClinROMs solely measured scalp hair loss (SALT, SALTⅡ, ALODEX, pSALT, and AA-IGA). Three trichoscopy-based ClinROMs assessed disease activity (AAPI, AAPS, and Coudability hair score). Six ClinROMs exclusively assessed non-scalp areas (BETA, BELA, ALBAS, ClinRO for Eyelash, Eyebrow, and Nail assessment). Two ClinROMs assessed both the scalp and beyond-scalp areas (AASI and AASc). The practical strengths and weaknesses of each assessment tool were described. Various practical limitations associated with established tools have impeded their universal implementation in routine clinical practice. There is a significant need for a holistic clinical severity scoring system to capture all the key severity identifiers beyond the involvement of the scalp.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10324,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llae320\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DERMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llae320","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床医生报告结果测量法(ClinROMs)是日常实践和临床试验中疾病评估的重要组成部分。对于最适合全面评估斑秃(AA)严重程度的临床报告结果量表,目前存在广泛分歧。本文旨在通过系统性的文献检索来确定目前可用的脱发症临床ROM,探讨其实际优缺点,并为未来的研究指明方向。本文通过 PubMed(Medline)和 EMBASE(通过 Ovid)数据库对已发表的同行评审文献进行了检索。其中包括过去 23 年内(2000 年以后)发表的客观测量 AA 严重程度的英文文章。我们没有选择仅基于患者报告结果(PROs)的评分系统。文献检索发现了 1376 篇文章,其中 27 篇被选中进行全文审阅。根据我们的资格标准,确定了 14 篇文章,介绍了 16 种不同的 ClinROM。其中五种 ClinROM 仅测量头皮脱发(SALT、SALTⅡ、ALODEX、pSALT 和 AA-IGA)。三种基于毛发镜的 ClinROM 评估疾病活动性(AAPI、AAPS 和 Coudability hair score)。六种 ClinROM 专门评估非头皮部位(BETA、BELA、ALBAS、用于评估睫毛、眉毛和指甲的 ClinRO)。有两个临床观测指标同时评估头皮和头皮以外的区域(AASI 和 AASc)。会上介绍了每种评估工具的实际优缺点。与现有工具相关的各种实际局限性阻碍了它们在常规临床实践中的普遍应用。目前亟需一种全面的临床严重程度评分系统,以捕捉头皮受累以外的所有关键严重程度识别指标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures for Alopecia Areata: A Systematic Scoping Review.

Clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinROMs) are an important part of disease assessment in daily practice and clinical trials. There is a broad disagreement on the most appropriate ClinROM for a comprehensive assessment of alopecia areata (AA) severity. This paper aims to identify the currently available ClinROMs for AA through a systematic literature search, address their practical strengths and weaknesses, and identify the road ahead for future research. A search was conducted of the published, peer-reviewed literature via PubMed (Medline) and EMBASE (via Ovid) databases. Articles published in English within the last 23 years (post-2000) that objectively measured AA severity were included. We did not select scoring systems that were solely based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The literature search identified 1376 articles, of which 27 were chosen for full-text review. Based on our eligibility criteria, fourteen articles were identified, describing sixteen different ClinROMs. Five ClinROMs solely measured scalp hair loss (SALT, SALTⅡ, ALODEX, pSALT, and AA-IGA). Three trichoscopy-based ClinROMs assessed disease activity (AAPI, AAPS, and Coudability hair score). Six ClinROMs exclusively assessed non-scalp areas (BETA, BELA, ALBAS, ClinRO for Eyelash, Eyebrow, and Nail assessment). Two ClinROMs assessed both the scalp and beyond-scalp areas (AASI and AASc). The practical strengths and weaknesses of each assessment tool were described. Various practical limitations associated with established tools have impeded their universal implementation in routine clinical practice. There is a significant need for a holistic clinical severity scoring system to capture all the key severity identifiers beyond the involvement of the scalp.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
2.40%
发文量
389
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Dermatology (CED) is a unique provider of relevant and educational material for practising clinicians and dermatological researchers. We support continuing professional development (CPD) of dermatology specialists to advance the understanding, management and treatment of skin disease in order to improve patient outcomes.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信