ReviewDermatology and therapy2023
Assessing Response in Atopic Dermatitis: A Systematic Review of the Psychometric Performance of Measures Used in HTAs and Clinical Trials.
Review in Dermatology and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Biomarkers for therapeutic response and adverse outcomes in atopic dermatitis: A systematic review.Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV · 2026Pooled it
- Itch Relief and Quality-of-Life Improvement with Abrocitinib and Dupilumab in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis: A Post Hoc Analysis of JADE COMPARE and JADE DARE.American journal of clinical dermatology · 2026Trial
- Model-informed drug development to support nemolizumab clinical development in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2026Article
- Targeting Intracellular Pathways in Atopic Dermatitis with Small Molecule Therapeutics.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Review
- Rapid Itch Improvement and Skin Clearance with Upadacitinib Versus Placebo (Measure Up 1 and Measure Up 2) and Versus Dupilumab (Heads Up): Results from Three Phase 3 Clinical Trials in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Article
- Complete/Near-Complete Itch Response Observed in Patients with Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis Initiating Dupilumab: 3-Year, Real-World, Interim Data from the PROSE Registry.Dermatology and therapy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAssessing treatment response is key to determining treatment value in atopic dermatitis (AD). Currently, response is assessed using various clinician- or patient-reported measures and response criteria. This variation creates a mismatch of evidence across trials, hindering the ability of clinicians, regulators, and payers to compare the efficacy of treatments. This review identifies which measures and criteria are used to determine response in clinical trials and health technology assessments (HTAs). Moreover, it systematically reviews the psychometric performance of those measures and criteria to understand which perform best in capturing patient-relevant symptoms and treatment benefits.
methodsA scoping review of clinical trials and HTAs in AD identified the following measures for inclusion: the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), the Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale (PP-NRS). A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase to identify studies testing the psychometric performance of these measures in adults or adolescents with AD.
resultsA lack of consistency in the assessment of response was observed across clinical trials and HTAs. Important gaps in psychometric evidence were identified. No content validations of the EASI and IGA in AD were found, while some quantitative studies suggested that these measures fail to capture itch, a core symptom. The PP-NRS and DLQI performed well. No studies compared the performance of different response criteria.
conclusionContent validation of the PP-NRS confirmed the importance of itch as a core symptom and treatment priority in AD; however, itch is not well covered in the EASI or IGA. Including the PP-NRS in clinical trials and HTAs will better capture patient-relevant benefit and response. Although various response criteria were used, no studies compared the performance of different criteria to inform which were most appropriate to compare treatments in clinical trials and HTAs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.