Search

Background: There is currently no standardized protocol for photopatch testing and phototesting in the United States. Certain testing paramaters (such as chemicals tested, time between test application and irradiation, and time of final interpretation) vary from provider to provider. These variations may impact comparability and consistency of test results., Objective: The goal of our survey-based study was to outline the photopatch test and phototest protocols used by US contact dermatologists. The information obtained will aid in the development of a national consensus on testing methodologies., Methods: Based on a literature search conducted on differences in testing methodologies, we constructed a questionnaire. The survey was distributed at the American Contact Dermatitis Society annual meeting and via the American Contact Dermatitis Society Web site. Standard descriptive analysis was performed on data obtained., Results: Of the 800 dermatologists contacted, 117 agreed to participate in the survey. Among these respondents, 64 (54.8%) conduct photopatch testing. Results of the survey are presented, and they confirm that a variety of techniques and testing materials are used., Conclusions: It would be beneficial to enlist a panel of expert contact dermatologists to create by formal consensus, using these research findings, a standard photopatch test protocol for use in this country.

The attitudes of patients toward resident participation in a university-based dermatology outpatient clinic were evaluated. Of 206 patients asked to participate, 191 patients completed the self-administered questionnaire (92.7%). The overwhelming majority of patients (99.5%) were satisfied (81.8% "very satisfied" and 17.7% "satisfied") with the resident's participation in their care. Many more patients expressed a willingness to allow residents to take histories (93.6%), perform physical examinations (87.2%), and counsel on preventive measures (74.5%), than to allow surgical excisions of skin cancers (19.7%), perform skin biopsies (43.6%), or prescribe medications (44.7%). Of respondents to the questionnaire, 83.2% self-reported an understanding of the difference between "resident" and "attending" physicians. However, only 31.3% (95% confidence interval 24.5-38.1) were able to broadly categorize the amount of training completed by dermatology residents. Dermatology resident participation in outpatient clinics is essential to quality dermatologic education. Consistent with the results of prior studies in other medical disciplines, our study demonstrated an overwhelming patient satisfaction with the participation of dermatology residents in their care.

Background: Problems with statistical methods and reporting have been noted in articles published in dermatology journals. Conclusions presented in published reports may be misleading if based on inappropriate or misinterpreted statistical analysis., Objective: We sought to assess dermatology journal editors' policies and perceptions regarding statistical review of submitted manuscripts., Design: We mailed and e-mailed a questionnaire survey., Participants: A total of 43 dermatology journal editors, representing 35 dermatology journals from the United States and abroad, participated in this study., Results: In all, 32 editors (74.4%), representing 30 journals (85.7%), returned questionnaires. A total of 24 editors (75%) reported having requested statistical reviews on less than 5% of published manuscripts containing original quantitative analysis (ie, excluding reviews and case reports), whereas 3 editors (9.4%) reported having requested statistical reviews on more than 75% of such manuscripts. Most editors reported requesting statistical reviews on a case-by-case basis either after initial favorable review by subject-matter (nonstatistical) reviewers (12 editors; 37.5%) or at the same time that subject-matter review was requested (6 editors; 18.8%). A total of 4 editors (12.5%) reported requesting statistical review for all manuscripts at the same time they are sent for subject-matter review. Another 10 editors (31.3%) said their journals had no general policy on statistical reviewing, and statistical review is almost never needed. For 15 editors (46.9%), ideal statistical reviewing policy was identical to their current policy, whereas 13 (40.6%) favored a more rigorous and 3 (9.4%) a less rigorous policy., Conclusions: Dermatology journals infrequently perform statistical reviews of submitted manuscripts. Dermatology journal editors' statistical review policies range from no general policy to (most frequently) requesting reviews on a case-by-case basis to reviewing all submitted manuscripts. Many editors favor more rigorous statistical reviewing policies for their journals. Increased use of statistical reviewing may increase the reliability of conclusions published in dermatology journals.