Search

Background: Instruments for field diagnosis of eczema are increasingly used, and it is essential to understand specific limitations to make best use of their strengths. Our objective was to assess the validity of ISAAC and UK Working Party criteria for field diagnosis of eczema in children. Methods: We performed a cohort study in urban Brazil. Parents/guardians of 1,419 children answered ISAAC phase II questionnaire. Children were examined for skin lesions (UKWP protocol). Two dermatologists examined most cases of eczema (according to ISAAC or UKWP), and a sample without eczema. Results: Agreement between repeat questionnaires on the filter question was poor (kappa = 0.4). Agreement between the 2 dermatologists was fair (kappa = 0.6). False positive reports included scabies in 39% of ISAAC cases and 33% of UKWP cases. Sensitivity and PPV were low (ISAAC: 37.1% and 16.1%; UKWP: 28.6% and 23.8%). Specificity and NPV were high (ISAAC: 90.0% and 96.6%; UKWP: 95.3% and 96.2%). One-year prevalence of eczema was 11.3% (ISAAC), 5.9% (UKWP) and 4.9% (adjusted dermatologist diagnosis). Point prevalence of scabies (alone or not) was 43%, 33% and 18%, in eczemas according to ISAAC, to UKWP and to dermatologists. The reasons why children with eczema were not identified by ISAAC or UKWP were wrongly denying dry skin, itchy rash or personal history of atopic diseases. A limitation is that questionnaire was already validated in Brazil, but not field tested in this specific setting. Conclusions: Studies using UKWP or ISAAC criteria should include a validation arm, to contribute to the understanding of potential limitations of their use in different contexts and to explore solutions. We list specific recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is wide variation in the use of outcome measures for eczema. We performed a three-stage web-based international Delphi exercise to develop consensus-based sets of core outcome domains for eczema for "controlled trials" and "clinical recordkeeping". A total of 57 individuals from four stakeholder groups (consumers, clinical experts, regulatory agency representatives, and journal editors) representing 13 countries were asked to rate the importance of 19 outcome domains for eczema and to choose which domains should be included in two core sets of outcomes. Forty-six individuals (81%) participated. Participants received standardized feedback, including the group median, interquartile range, and previous responses, and the assessment was repeated in two subsequent rounds. We defined consensus a priori if at least 60% of the members of at least three stakeholder groups, including consumers, recommended domain inclusion in the core set. Consensus was achieved for inclusion of symptoms, physician-assessed clinical signs, and a measurement for long-term control of flares in the core set of outcome domains for eczema trials. We recommend including these three core outcomes in future eczema trials in order to enhance clinical interpretability and to enable meta-analyses across different studies. For recordkeeping, consensus was reached to regularly monitor eczema symptoms in clinical practice. Future work is needed to select which existing or new scales should be used to measure the domains identified as relevant for the core set.