Gianotti-Crosti syndrome, pityriasis rosea, asymmetrical periflexural exanthem, unilateral mediothoracic exanthem, eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, and papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome: a brief review and arguments for diagnostic criteria.

Several exanthems including Gianotti-Crosti syndrome, pityriasis rosea, asymmetrical periflexural exanthem, eruptive pseudoangiomatosis, and papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome are suspected to be caused by viruses. These viruses are potentially dangerous. Gianotti-Crosti syndrome is related to hepatitis B virus infection which is the commonest cause of hepatocellular carcinoma, and Epstein-Barr virus infection which is related to nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Pityriasis rosea has been suspected to be related to human herpesvirus 7 and 8 infections, with the significance of the former still largely unknown, and the latter being a known cause of Kaposi's sarcoma. Papular-purpuric gloves and socks syndrome is significantly associated with human B19 erythrovirus infection which can lead to aplastic anemia in individuals with congenital hemoglobinopathies, and when transmitted to pregnant women, can cause spontaneous abortions and congenital anomalies. With viral DNA sequence detection technologies, false positive results are common. We can no longer apply Koch's postulates to establish cause-effect relationships. Biological properties of some viruses including lifelong latent infection, asymptomatic shedding, and endogenous reactivation render virological results on various body tissues difficult to interpret. We might not be able to confirm or refute viral causes for these rashes in the near future. Owing to the relatively small number of patients, virological and epidemiology studies, and treatment trials usually recruit few study and control subjects. This leads to low statistical powers and thus results have little clinical significance. Moreover, studies with few patients are less likely to be accepted by mainstream dermatology journals, leading to publication bias. Aggregation of data by meta-analyses on many studies each with a small number of patients can theoretically elevate the power of the results. Techniques are also in place to compensate for publication bias. However, these are not currently feasible owing to different inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical studies and treatment trials. The diagnoses of these rashes are based on clinical assessment. Investigations only serve to exclude important differential diagnoses. A wide spectrum of clinical features is seen, and clinical features can vary across different populations. The terminologies used to define these rashes are confusing, and even more so are the atypical forms and variants. Previously reported virological and epidemiological results for these rashes are conflicting in many aspects. The cause of such incongruence is unknown, but low homogeneity during diagnosis and subject recruitment might be one of the factors leading to these incongruent results. The establishment and proper validation of diagnostic criteria will facilitate clinical diagnosis, hasten recruitment into clinical studies, and allow results of different studies to be directly compared with each another. Meta-analyses and systematic reviews would be more valid. Diagnostic criteria also streamline clinical audits and surveillance of these diseases from community perspectives. However, over-dependence on diagnostic criteria in the face of conflicting clinical features is a potential pitfall. Clinical acumen and the experience of the clinicians cannot be replaced by diagnostic criteria. Diagnostic criteria should be validated and re-validated in response to the ever-changing manifestations of these intriguing rashes. We advocate the establishment and validation of diagnostic criteria of these rashes. We also encourage the ongoing conduction of studies with a small number of patients. However, for a wider purpose, these studies should recruit homogenous patient groups with a view towards future data aggregation.