Search

Background: Standardized outcome reporting is crucial for trial evidence synthesis and translation of findings into clinical decision‐making. The OMERACT 2.0 Filter and COMET outcome domain taxonomy propose frameworks for consistent reporting of outcomes. There is an absence of a uniform dermatology‐specific reporting strategy that uses precise and consistent outcome definitions. Objectives: Our aim was to map efficacy/effectiveness outcomes assessed in dermatological trials to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter as a starting point for developing an outcome taxonomy in dermatology. Methods: We critically appraised 10 Cochrane Skin Reviews randomly selected from all 69 Cochrane Skin Reviews published until 01/2015 and the 220 trials included covering a broad spectrum of dermatological conditions and interventions. Efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were mapped to core areas and domains according to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter. The extracted trial outcomes were used for critical appraisal of outcome reporting in dermatology trials and for the preliminary development of a dermatology‐specific outcome taxonomy. Results: The allocation of 1086 extracted efficacy/effectiveness outcomes to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter resulted in a hierarchically structured dermatology‐specific outcome classification. In 506 outcomes (47%), the outcome concept to be measured was insufficiently described, hindering meaningful evidence synthesis. Although the core areas assessed in different dermatology trials of the same condition overlap considerably, quantitative evidence synthesis usually failed due to imprecise outcome definitions, non‐comparable outcome measurement instruments, metrics and reporting. Conclusions: We present an efficacy/effectiveness outcome classification as a starting point for a dermatology‐specific taxonomy to provide trialists and reviewers with the opportunity to better synthesize and compare evidence. Linked Commentary: A. Ragamin et al. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2021; 35: 276‐277. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.17103. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed tools to assist clinicians and health policy makers in decision making for clearly defined clinical situations. In the light of the demand for evidence-based medicine and quality in health care and the increasing methodological requirements concerning guidelines development, it is important to evaluate existing practice guidelines to systematically identify strengths and weaknesses. Currently, the most accepted tool for the methodological evaluation of guidelines is the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation ( AGREE) Instrument. Intention of this assessment is to identify and critically appraise clinical practice guidelines commissioned by the European Dermatology Forum ( EDF). A quality assessment of a predefined set of guidelines, including all available clinical practice guidelines published on the EDF guidelines internet site, was performed using the AGREE II instrument. To assure an objective assessment, four independent assessments were performed by evaluators situated in different European countries. Twenty-five EDF guidelines covering different dermatological topics were identified and evaluated. The assessment included seven guidelines developed on the highest methodological standard (systematic literature search and structured consensus conference, S3). Eighteen guidelines were identified that were based on either a structured consensus process ( S2k), a systematic literature assessment ( S2e) or on informal consensus only ( S1). The methodological and reporting quality among the evaluated guidelines was heterogeneous. S3 guidelines generally received the highest scores. The domains 'clarity of presentation' and 'scope and purpose' achieved the highest mean ratings within the different domains of assessment, whereas the domains of 'applicability', 'stakeholder involvement' and 'editorial independence' scored poorly. Considering the large variations in the achieved scores, there is need for methodological harmonization within the EDF guidelines to achieve comparable methodological standards. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Gouty panniculitis is a very rare disease. To date, only eight patients have been reported. In each case, time to diagnosis was lengthy. We describe a 68-year-old man with a 6-month history of tender, erythematous plaques and nodules involving the anterior aspects of the legs Methods and results Histologic examination led to the diagnosis of gouty panniculitis. Conclusion Review of the literature and the present case suggests that hyperuricemia is a necessary but probably not sufficient condition for gouty panniculitis. Why gouty panniculitis very seldom arises as a manifestation of gout is puzzling. In almost all reported patients, uricostatic or uricosuric therapy leads to clinical improvement of the disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]