ReviewThe patient2017
Impact of Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dermatology Drug Development.
Review in The patient, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Early and Sustained Improvements in Symptoms and Quality of Life with Upadacitinib in Adults and Adolescents with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: 52-Week Results from Two Phase III Randomized Clinical Trials (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2).American journal of clinical dermatology · 2024Trial
- Impact of Oral Abrocitinib Monotherapy on Patient-Reported Symptoms and Quality of Life in Adolescents and Adults with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Pooled Analysis of Patient-Reported Outcomes.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2021Trial
- Patient-Reported Outcomes Used for Regulatory Approval of Medicines Indicated for the Treatment of Dermatological Diseases Authorized in the European Union Between 1998 and 2024.Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science · 2026Article
- Health-Related Quality of Life in Chronic Hand Eczema in a Phase 2b Trial of Delgocitinib Cream.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Upadacitinib Rapidly Improves Patient-Reported Outcomes in Atopic Dermatitis: 16-Week Results from Phase 3 Clinical Trials (Measure Up 1 and 2).Dermatology and therapy · 2024Article
- Safety, Efficacy and Attributes of 2.5% Selenium Sulfide Shampoo in the Treatment of Dandruff: A Single-Center Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Itching in Atopic Dermatitis: Patient- and Physician-reported Outcomes in the German Atopic Dermatitis Registry TREATgermany.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2023Article
- Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for disease severity and quality of life in patients with atopic dermatitis: a systematic review of English and Chinese literature.Annals of translational medicine · 2022Review
- Expanding Personalized, Data-Driven Dermatology: Leveraging Digital Health Technology and Machine Learning to Improve Patient Outcomes.JID innovations : skin science from molecules to population health · 2022Review
- Self-Reported Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity: Is It Useful for Clinical Practice?Dermatology and therapy · 2022Article
- Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Atopic Dermatitis and Chronic Hand Eczema in Adults.The patient · 2019Review
- Severity strata for five patient-reported outcomes in adults with atopic dermatitis.The British journal of dermatology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although some symptoms of dermatologic diseases, such as pruritus and pain, can be subjectively assessed only by patients, the most commonly used endpoints in dermatology drug research traditionally have been clinician-reported outcomes. Research has found that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were included in only one-quarter of 125 trials conducted between 1994 and 2001. Our objective was to characterize the impact of PROs in dermatology drug development from the patient, prescriber, regulator, payer, and manufacturer perspectives using a case study approach. We conducted a structured literature review for pivotal clinical trials using PROs for six dermatologic products (MAS063DP, onabotulinumtoxinA, calcipotriene hydrate plus betamethasone dipropionate, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and ustekinumab). We also searched regulatory websites to identify product labeling and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence website to identify submissions for the products of interest. A total of 32 articles illustrating the various perspectives were selected for inclusion. Clinical trials that include PROs allow patients to differentiate among treatments based on the experience of other patients participating in trials and enable prescribers to understand the benefit-risk profile of new treatments. The inclusion of PROs enables regulators to evaluate product benefits with a patient-centered perspective; five of the products of interest obtained eight total product labeling statements. PRO data supported manufacturers' dissemination of product benefits in the form of publications and PRO labeling for the product. For payers, PRO data were used in an analysis of cost effectiveness of new treatments. Inclusion of PROs in dermatology drug development programs benefits patients, prescribers, regulators, manufacturers, and payers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.