Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30719709›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of dermatology2019

TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce: consensus on how and when to measure the core dataset for atopic eczema treatment research registries.

F M Vermeulen, L A A Gerbens, A L Bosma, C J Apfelbacher, A D Irvine, B W M Arents, S Barbarot, M Deleuran, L F Eichenfield, A Manca and 8 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of dermatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors.

F M VermeulenAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam Public Health, Infection and Immunity, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6333-3334
L A A GerbensAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam Public Health, Infection and Immunity, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5244-5058
A L BosmaAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam Public Health, Infection and Immunity, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6807-6042
C J ApfelbacherMedical Sociology, Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.
A D IrvineDepartment of Paediatric Dermatology, Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-9048-2044
B W M ArentsDutch Association for People with Atopic Dermatitis, Nijkerk, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6884-8014
S BarbarotDepartment of Dermatology, Nantes University Hospital, Nantes, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6629-9100
M DeleuranDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0593-9925
L F EichenfieldDepartments of Dermatology and Pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, CA, U.S.A.
A MancaCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, U.K.
J SchmittCentre for Evidence-based Healthcare, Medizinische Fakultät Carl Gustav Carus, Technical University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0264-0960
C VestergaardDepartment of Dermatology and Venereology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark.
D WallDepartment of Paediatric Dermatology, Our Lady's Children's Hospital, Crumlin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-0107-4488
S WeidingerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3944-252X
M A Middelkamp-HupAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam Public Health, Infection and Immunity, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
P I SpulsAmsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Department of Dermatology, Amsterdam Public Health, Infection and Immunity, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6035-2863
C FlohrUnit for Population-Based Dermatology Research, St John's Institute of Dermatology, Guy's & St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, London, U.K.ORCID 0000-0003-4884-6286
International TREAT Registry Taskforce

Funding

National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research CentreNIHR Career Development Fellowship CDF-2014-07-037
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComparative, real-life and long-term evidence on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) is limited. Such data must come from well-designed prospective patient registries. Standardization of data collection is needed for direct comparisons and data pooling.

objectivesTo reach a consensus on how and when to measure the previously defined domain items of the TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce core dataset for research registries for paediatric and adult patients with AE.

methodsProposals for the measurement instruments were based on recommendations of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, the existing AE database of TREATgermany, systematic reviews of the literature and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at three face-to-face consensus meetings, one teleconference and via e-mail. The frequency of follow-up visits was determined by an expert survey.

resultsA total of 16 experts from seven countries participated in the 'how to measure' consensus process and 12 external experts were consulted. A consensus was reached for all domain items on how they should be measured by assigning measurement instruments. A minimum follow-up frequency of initially 4 weeks after commencing treatment, then every 3 months while on treatment and every 6 months while off treatment was defined.

conclusionsThis core dataset for national AE research registries will aid in the comparability and pooling of data across centres and country borders, and enables international collaboration to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy used in patients with AE. What's already known about this topic? Comparable, real-life and long-term data on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in patients with atopic eczema (AE) are needed. There is a high diversity of outcomes and instruments used in AE research, which require harmonization to enhance comparability and allow data pooling. What does this study add? Our taskforce has reached international consensus on how and when to measure core domain items for national AE research registries. This core dataset is now available for use by researchers worldwide and will aid in the collection of unified data. What are the clinical implications of this work? The data collected through this core dataset will help to gain better insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in AE and will provide important information for clinical practice. Standardization of such data collection at the national level will also allow direct data comparisons and pooling across country borders (e.g. in the analysis of treatment-related adverse events that require large patient numbers).

Indexed as

AdultAdvisory CommitteesAftercareChildDatasets as TopicDermatitis, AtopicDermatologic AgentsHumansPhototherapyProspective StudiesRegistriesSeverity of Illness IndexTreatment OutcomeDermatologic Agents

Identifiers

PMID30719709
PMCPMC6771812

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.