Protocol of a scoping review of outcome domains in dermatology.

INTRODUCTION: Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.

Treatment of traumatic hypertrophic scars and keloids: a systematic review of randomized control trials.

Exaggerated healing and remodeling after skin injury may cause hypertrophic and keloidal scars, which are associated with functional and quality of life impairment. There is limited guidance available regarding the relative effectiveness of therapies for hypertrophic scars and keloids. In this review, we aim to compare the effectiveness of treatments for hypertrophic scars and keloids. MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Collaboration database were searched from inception to March 2019 for randomized control trials of treatments for hypertrophic and keloid scars that included 20 or more patients. Outcomes evaluated included the standardized mean reduction in scarring and adverse events. The type of scar and the demographic features were analyzed for their effect on clinical outcome. Based on 25 included clinical trials, intralesional injection (64.1% [95% CI 60.8-67.5%]) may be more effective than physical (29.9% [95% CI 28.9-30.9%]) or topical treatments (34% [95% CI 31.8-36.8%]). Combination of 5-fluorouracil and triamcinolone (9:1 dilution) appeared superior among intralesional treatments for keloids. Ablative laser and pulsed-dye laser were the most useful laser treatments. Regression modeling showed laser treatment response was linked to Fitzpatrick skin type (p = 0.002). Adverse events were uncommon for all treatments and mostly transient. Intralesional treatments for keloid and hypertrophic scars may be the most reliable treatment option to improve pathologic scars, while laser treatment may have specific benefits for Fitzpatrick skin types I-III over types IV-VI. Management of pathological scars is an area of critical need, where appropriate treatment can have a significant impact on quality of life.