ArticleSkin health and disease2024
Determining the minimal important change of the recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) instrument in clinical trials.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Assessing Atopic Dermatitis Control in Chinese Patients: Validation of the Chinese Version of Recap of Atopic Eczema Questionnaire (RECAP) and an Investigation into Its Interpretability.Acta dermato-venereologica · 2025Article
- Determining the minimal important change of the recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) instrument in clinical trials.Skin health and disease · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.