Outcome assessment in dermatology clinical trials and cochrane reviews: call for a dermatology-specific outcome taxonomy.

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.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2017. Part 2: epidemiology, aetiology and risk factors.

This article forms part of a series of annual updates that summarizes the evidence base for atopic eczema (AE). It provides a summary of key findings from 28 systematic reviews that were published or indexed during 2017, and focuses on the epidemiology, aetiology and risk factors of AE. AE is the largest single contributor to morbidity associated with skin disease worldwide, once mortality has been excluded. There is a high prevalence of sleep disturbance in individuals with AE and they take more sick leave than controls. While there is a lack of skin bacterial diversity in patients with AE, there is a relative abundance of Staphylococcus aureus and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Compared with controls, affected individuals more often show an IgE response to S. aureus antigens and have higher serum interleukin-31 levels. Early antibiotic exposure, environmental pollutants, maternal atopy and food allergy are associated with an increased risk of AE, and very preterm birth is associated with decreased risk. Patients with AE have a reduced risk of meningioma, but are more likely to develop attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder compared with controls. Patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis are significantly more likely than unaffected individuals to have AE. There is no significant overall association between AE and allergic contact dermatitis (ACD), and in children referred for patch testing, ACD was more common in those without AE. Hand eczema is more prevalent in patients with AE. There is no association between AE and Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, stroke or myocardial infarction.

What's new in atopic eczema? An analysis of systematic reviews published in 2016. Part 3: nomenclature and outcome assessment.

This review forms part of a series of annual updates that summarize the evidence base for atopic eczema (AE). It presents the key findings from 11 systematic reviews published in 2016 that focus on AE outcome assessment, disease impact and nomenclature. Systematic reviews on the treatment and prevention of AE are summarized in Part 1 of this update, and systematic reviews on the epidemiology of and risk factors for AE are summarized in Part 2. Six reviews summarized what outcome measurement instruments have been used in published AE trials, or summarized validation studies for the available instruments. These reviews were used to inform consensus decisions by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative. Although validated instruments exist for clinical signs and patient-reported symptoms, there are currently no validated instruments for capturing quality of life or long-term control. Four reviews examined the impact of AE on children and their families, but few studies were included. One birth cohort study found no association between AE and educational attainment at 11 years. AE has a moderate impact on health-related quality of life and a substantial impact on family life. AE is a major risk factor for occupational hand dermatitis, and it is advised that young atopic individuals are informed about high-risk occupations. Further efforts are required to standardize the nomenclature for AE, which is also commonly known as 'atopic dermatitis' or 'eczema', and preferred terms vary around the world.

What is the evidence base for atopic eczema treatments? A summary of published randomized controlled trials.

Atopic eczema (AE) is a common chronic inflammatory skin condition. While many AE treatment options are available, the evidence to support their efficacy varies in depth and quality. In 2000, a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment systematic review identified and evaluated existing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of AE treatments. To ensure continuing utility, the NIHR commissioned an update to the review. Here, we present an overview of the updated report and its key findings. Systematic reviews and RCTs of AE treatments that included participants with AE (criteria based or diagnosed) were identified using Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register [searched to 31 August 2013 (RCTs) and 31 December 2015 (systematic reviews)]. Outcome measures included symptoms, AE severity, quality of life and adverse effects. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Of the 287 new RCTs identified, only 22 (8%) were judged to have a low risk of bias. When combined with RCTs from the previous review (n = 254), we found 'reasonable evidence of benefit' for corticosteroids, calcineurin inhibitors, Atopiclair® , ciclosporin, azathioprine, ultraviolet radiation and education programmes. Interventions with reasonable evidence of 'no benefit' included some dietary interventions, ion exchange water softeners, multiple daily applications of topical corticosteroids and antibiotic-containing corticosteroids for noninfected AE. Many common treatments lack evidence of efficacy and warrant further evaluation. The evidence base for AE is still hampered by poor trial design and reporting. The trials included in this review were used to establish the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database.