Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39040844›Full record

ArticleJAAD international2024

Developing a questionnaire for assessing clinician- and patient-reported outcomes in actinic keratosis: Results from an expert panel.

Brian Berman, April Armstrong, Mark Lebwohl, Ayman Grada, Neal Bhatia, Vishal A Patel, Darrell Rigel, James Del Rosso, Todd Schlesinger, Leon Kircik and 3 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAAD international, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05260073 (A Prospective Cohort Study of Patients With Actinic Keratosis), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

NCT05260073 completednot on this map

A Prospective Cohort Study of Patients With Actinic Keratosis (AK) in the Face or Scalp Treated With Tirbanibulin and Followed for 24 Weeks Post Treatment-initiation. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Clinical Profile of Patients Will be Gathered for Descriptive Analyses of Patient Outcomes Over the 24-week Study Observation Period

TypeobservationalSponsorAlmirall, S.A.Ran2022 to 2023Enrolled300ConditionsKeratosis, ActinicArmsTirbanibulin
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

13 authors.

Brian BermanUniversity of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Miami, Florida.
April ArmstrongKeck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California.
Mark LebwohlMount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Ayman GradaCase Western Reserve University School of Medicine, Health Education Campus, Cleveland, Ohio.
Neal BhatiaTherapeutics Clinical Research, San Diego, California.
Vishal A PatelGeorge Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, District of Columbia.
Darrell RigelMount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York.
James Del RossoTouro University Nevada, Henderson, Nevada.
Todd SchlesingerClinical Research Center of the Carolinas, Charleston, South Carolina.
Leon KircikMount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine, New York, New York.
Raidah SalemMedical Affairs, Almirall, LLC, Malvern, Pennsylvania.
Siva NarayananAvant Health LLC, Bethesda, Maryland.
Ismail KasujeeGlobal Medical Affairs, Almirall SA, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Current assessments on topical treatment attributes in actinic keratosis (AK) do not evaluate safety, effectiveness, and satisfaction from both clinician and patient perspectives, creating an unmet need for more comprehensive AK-specific measures that fully capture the patient experience. Objective: To develop an actinic keratosis-specific expert panel questionnaire (AK-EPQ) of patient-reported outcomes and clinician-reported outcomes for use in research studies. Methods: Using interviews of patients with AK and targeted literature reviews, a 9-person consensus panel of dermatologists with expertise in AK treatment was convened to develop the AK-EPQ to assess AK-specific patient-reported outcomes and clinician-reported outcomes. Results: Nine expert advisers achieved consensus on 11 AK-EPQ items that encompass patient and clinician perspectives of treatment-related local skin reactions, clinical and cosmetic outcomes associated with AK, and satisfaction with treatment; the AK-EPQ will be first implemented in the Patient-Reported Outcomes for Actinic Keratosis study (NCT05260073). Limitations: The AK-EPQ does not directly measure quality of life, although it can be used with validated quality of life instruments. Conclusion: The newly developed AK-EPQ elicits insights into the patient and clinician experience with AK treatments. Comparative probing of these perspectives may help optimize precision medicine in AK treatment.

Indexed as

adherenceclinical outcomesclinician-reported outcomesconsensus panelcosmetic outcomeshealth-related quality of lifelocal skin reactionspatient-reported outcomespatient satisfaction

Identifiers

PMID39040844
PMCPMC11262182

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.