Quality of life assessment in core outcome sets: A position statement of the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes.

Core outcome sets (COSs) are an agreed standardized collection of outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials for a specific clinical condition. Tsekhe aim of our position paper by the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes was to identify the challenges and Patient Oriented Outcomes advantages in the development of COSs within dermatological QoL research. Twelve EADV Task Force multidisciplinary team members presented a total of 101 items (51 advantages and 50 disadvantages). All participants considered that COS are beneficial for comparison between different studies, treatments, dermatological diseases, geographical location and ethnicities. In conclusion, the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life and Patient Oriented Outcomes has recognized the primacy of advantages of COS and deliberated that the disadvantages in COS are related to development process and use of COS.

Why quality of life measurement is important in dermatology clinical practice: An expert-based opinion statement by the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life.

The aim of this study was to describe the many ways in which quality of life (QoL) measurement may potentially be advantageous in routine clinical dermatology practice. Thirteen members of the EADV Task Force on Quality of Life, eight dermatologists, three health psychologists, one epidemiologist and one pharmacoepidemiologist, independently listed all of the ways they thought this may be advantageous. A total of 108 different ways of using QoL information in clinical practice were suggested (median per participant = 8, range = 4-15), and were classified into 20 descriptive groups. These were sorted into the following five categories: inform clinical decisions, clinician-patient communication, awareness of skin disease burden, informing the consultation and clinical service administration. The wide range of potential benefits identified may not only encourage clinicians to use these measures but also highlights many areas requiring evidence to establish the true value of routine use of QoL measures.