Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39624761›Full record

ArticleSkin health and disease2024

Determining the minimal important change of the recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) instrument in clinical trials.

Arabella Baker, Beth Stuart, Laura Howells, Eleanor J Mitchell, Kim S Thomas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Skin health and disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

5 authors.

Arabella BakerCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology School of Medicine University of Nottingham Nottingham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0101-4693
Beth StuartPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit Queen Mary University of London London UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5432-7437
Laura HowellsCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology School of Medicine University of Nottingham Nottingham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4157-7394
Eleanor J MitchellNottingham Clinical Trials Unit University of Nottingham Nottingham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6998-4533
Kim S ThomasCentre of Evidence Based Dermatology School of Medicine University of Nottingham Nottingham UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7785-7465

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) is a patient-reported instrument designed to assess eczema control. There is a lack of evidence on the interpretability of change scores in clinical trials. Objectives: To calculate the smallest detectable change (SDC) in RECAP and estimate the minimal important change (MIC) for RECAP using various calculation methods in three eczema clinical trial datasets. Methods: In this study, four anchor-based methods (within-person score change, between-patient score change, predictive modelling, receiver operating characteristic curve) and a distribution-based method (effect size) was used to determine the MIC of RECAP. The trial datasets involved children (0-12 years), young people (13-25 years) and adults (>25 years) with all eczema severities. Results: A total of 698 participants were included in this study. The SDC was between 1.74 and 1.80. For the anchor-based methods, the patient global assessment anchor provided MIC values ranging from 2.35 to 3.94 and the patient oriented eczema measure anchor yielded values between 1.11 and 3.62. The MIC for the distribution-based method ranged from 2.66 to 3.06, respectively. Conclusions: The interpretability of RECAP was improved by establishing MIC values and the following thresholds are suggested for interpreting changes in RECAP scores: <2.0 points is possibly a measurement error; 2.0-2.9 points denotes a small improvement that may be clinically relevant; 3.0-3.9 points indicates an improvement that is likely to be clinically important and ≥4.0 points is highly likely to represent a clinically important change.

Identifiers

PMID39624761
PMCPMC11608894

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.