Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32415727›Full record

ArticleDermatologic therapy2020

COVID-19 knowledge prevents biologics discontinuation: Data from an Italian multicenter survey during RED-ZONE declaration.

Nicola Luigi Bragazzi, Matteo Riccò, Alessia Pacifico, Piergiorgio Malagoli, Khalaf Kridin, Paolo Pigatto, Giovanni Damiani

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Dermatologic therapy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
13.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.

Nicola Luigi BragazziLaboratory for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (LIAM), Department of Mathematics and Statistics, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Matteo RiccòPostgraduate School of Public Health, Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6525-2159
Alessia PacificoSan Gallicano Dermatological Institute, IRCCS, Rome, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0348-0620
Piergiorgio MalagoliDermatology Unit, Azienda Ospedaliera San Donato Milanese, Milan, Italy.
Khalaf KridinLűbeck Institute of Experimental Dermatology, University of Lűbeck, Lűbeck, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9971-9151
Paolo PigattoClinical Dermatology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Giovanni DamianiClinical Dermatology, IRCCS Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2390-6505
University of Milan · ITIRCCS Policlinico San Donato · ITSan Gallicano Hospital · ITUniversity of Genoa · ITUniversity of Lübeck · DEYork University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

SARS-CoV-2 become pandemics and there is still a dearth of data about its the potentially among dermatological patients under biologics. We aimed to assess health literacy, disease knowledge, treatment dissatisfaction and biologics attitudes toward COVID-19. We performed a cross-sectional, questionnaire-based survey on 98/105 consecutive dermatological patients treated with biologics-51 suffering from plaque psoriasis, 22 from atopic dermatitis, and 25 from hidradenitis suppurativa. An ad hoc, validated questionnaire has 44 items investigating the following domains: knowledge of COVID-19 related to (a) epidemiology, (b) pathogenesis, (c) clinical symptoms, (d) preventive measures, and (e) attitudes. Patients data and questionnaires were collected. Despite only 8.1% thought that biologics may increase the risk of COVID-19, 18.4% and 21.4% of the patients were evaluating the possibility to discontinue or modify the dosage of the current biologic therapy, respectively. Globally, male patients (P = .001) with higher scholarity level (P = .005) displayed higher knowledge of COVID-19. Patients with lower DLQI (P = .006), longer disease duration (P = .051) and lower scholarity (P = .007) have thought to discontinue/modify autonomously their biologic therapy. At the multivariate logistic regression, only the knowledge of epidemiology and preventive measures resulted independent predictors of continuation vs discontinuation and modification vs no modification, respectively. Dermatologists should promote COVID-19 knowledge to prevent biologics disruption.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAdultBiological ProductsComorbidityCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansItalyMalePandemicsPneumonia, ViralPrognosisBiological Productsatopic dermatitisbiologicsCOVID-19COVID-19 questionnairehidradenitis suppurativapsoriasisSARS-CoV-2

Identifiers

PMID32415727
PMCPMC7267153
OpenAlexW3024021900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.