Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35635781›Full record

ReviewClinical and experimental dermatology2022

On the definition of dermatological disease. Part 2: approaches for defining dermatological diseases.

Hywel C Williams, Esther Burden-Teh

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and experimental dermatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Hywel C WilliamsCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Population and Lifespan Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5646-3093
Esther Burden-TehCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology, Population and Lifespan Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0033-2836

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research Clinical Lecturer
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In Part 1 of this two-part review, conceptual frameworks for defining skin diseases were articulated. In this review, the main approaches that can be used to develop diagnostic criteria for skin disease are summarized, using atopic dermatitis (AD) as an example. Different frameworks for defining skin disease for research purposes are articulated, including statistical, prognostic, operational, clinical and epidemiological approaches. All share the common aim of attempting to develop criteria that enable meaningful comparisons between groups of people. The desirable attributes of a good definition are described: diagnostic criteria should measure what they are meant to measure; the results should be the same for different assessors; the criteria should be coherent with what is known about that disease; they should reflect some degree of morbidity and not pick up subclinical disease; they should be easy to administer; and they should be applicable to a range of people of different ages, sexes/genders and ethnicities. Consensus-based criteria are contrasted with epidemiological derivation methods that assess the performance of diagnostic criteria in relation to a reference standard. The sensitivity and specificity of a disease definition is explained, along with how the trade-off between these two properties can vary, depending on the purpose of the study and the study setting. The review closes with some reflections on when it is appropriate to consider splitting a disease into more than one category and how diagnostic criteria can be interpreted in the clinical setting.

Indexed as

Dermatitis, AtopicFemaleHumansMaleReference StandardsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID35635781
PMCPMC9795889

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.