ArticleJournal of clinical and investigative dermatology2020
Inter- and Intra-physician variation in quantifying actinic keratosis skin photodamage.
Article in Journal of clinical and investigative dermatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Actinic keratosis metrics.Archives of dermatological research · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We investigated the variations in physician evaluation of skin photodamage based on a published photodamage scale. Of interest is the utility of a 10-level scale ranging from none and mild photodamage to actinic keratosis (AK). The dorsal forearms of 55 adult subjects with various amounts of photodamage were considered. Each forearm was independently evaluated by 15 board-certified dermatologists according to the Global Assessment Severity Scale ranging from 0 (less severe) to 9 (the most progressed stage of skin damage). Dermatologists rated the levels of photodamage based upon the photographs in blinded fashion. Results show substantial disagreement amongst the dermatologists on the severity of photodamage. Our results indicate that ratings could be more consistent if using a scale of less levels (5-levels or 3-levels). Ultimately, clinicians can use this knowledge to provide better interpretation of inter-rater evaluations and provide more reliable assessment and frequent monitoring of high-risk populations.
Identifiers
33088904PMC7575200W3094111570What 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.