Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35470457›Full record

ArticleJournal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV2022

Requirements and expectations of high-quality biomarkers for atopic dermatitis and psoriasis in 2021-a two-round Delphi survey among international experts.

S Ziehfreund, L Tizek, N Hangel, M-C Fritzsche, S Weidinger, C Smith, P J Bryce, D Greco, E H van den Bogaard, C Flohr and 6 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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

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

  1. Biomarkers for therapeutic response and adverse outcomes in atopic dermatitis: A systematic review.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Biomarkers in atopic dermatitis: Current evidence and unmet needs.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. An Expert Consensus Statement on Biomarkers of Aging for Use in Intervention Studies.The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Biomarkers in Atopic Dermatitis.Dermatology and therapy · 2024
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. [Molecular diagnosis of hand eczema].Dermatologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

S ZiehfreundDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3176-1120
L TizekDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2749-9791
N HangelInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6809-4603
M-C FritzscheInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
S WeidingerDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel, Germany.
C SmithSt John's Institute of Dermatology, Kings College London and Guys and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9918-1144
P J BryceType 2 Inflammation & Fibrosis Cluster, Immunology & Inflammation Therapeutic Area, Sanofi US, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
D GrecoFaculty of Medicine and Health Technology, BioMediTech Institute, Tampere University, Tampere, Finland.
E H van den BogaardDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Molecular Life Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
C FlohrUnit for Population-Based Dermatology Research, St John's Institute of Dermatology, School of Basic and Medical Biosciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4884-6286
J Rastrick UcbImmunology Research, New Medicines UCB Pharma, Slough, UK.
S EyerichCenter of Allergy and Environment (ZAUM), Technical University and Helmholtz Center Munich, Munich, Germany.
A BuyxInstitute for History and Ethics of Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
C ConradDepartment of Dermatology, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, Lausanne, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2547-3440
K EyerichDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Munich, Germany.
A ZinkDepartment of Dermatology and Allergy, Technical University of Munich, School of Medicine, Munich, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9313-6588

Funding

Innovative Medicines Initiative 821511
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic inflammatory skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis (AD) and psoriasis (PSO) present major challenges in health care. Thus, biomarkers to identify disease trajectories and response to treatments to improve the lives of affected individuals warrant great research consideration. The requirements that these biomarkers must fulfil for use as practical clinical tools have not yet been adequately investigated.

aimTo identify the core elements of high-quality AD and PSO biomarkers to prepare recommendations for current biomarker research.

methodA cross-sectional two-round Delphi survey was conducted from August to October 2019 and October to November 2020. All participants were members of the BIOMAP project, an EU-funded consortium of clinicians, researchers, patient organizations and pharmaceutical industry partners. The first round consisted of three open-ended questions. Responses were qualitatively analysed, and 26 closed statements were developed. For the second round, 'agreement' was assumed when the responses of ≥70% of the participants were ≥5 points on a 7-point Likert scale for each statement. Priority classification was based on mean scores (<20th percentile = low, 20th to 60th percentile = medium, >60th percentile = high).

resultsTwenty-one and twenty-six individuals participated in rounds one and two, respectively. From 26 statements that were included in round 2, 18 achieved agreement (8 concerning the performance, 8 for the purpose and 2 on current obstacles). Seven statements were classified as high priority, e.g. those concerning reliability, clinical validity, a high positive predictive value, prediction of the therapeutic response and disease progression. Another seven statements were assigned medium priority, e.g. those about analytical validity, prediction of comorbidities and therapeutic algorithm. Low priority included four statements, like those concerning cost effectiveness and prediction of disease flares.

conclusionThe core requirements that experts agreed on being essential for high-quality AD and PSO biomarkers require rapid validation. Biomarkers can therefore be assessed based on these prioritized requirements.

Indexed as

Dermatitis, AtopicPsoriasisBiomarkersConsensusCross-Sectional StudiesDelphi TechniqueHumansMotivationReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesBiomarkers

Identifiers

PMID35470457

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.