ArticleJAMA dermatology2025
Interobserver and Intraobserver Agreement on the Treatment of Infantile Hemangiomas.
Article in JAMA dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Although clinical practice guidelines exist for the treatment of infantile hemangiomas (IHs), recommendations are heterogeneous, and wide practice variations in IH management have been reported. Objective: To analyze the degree of agreement in treatment choices for IH among pediatric dermatologists in North America and Europe and assess whether there are differences across IH risk categories. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional interrater and intrarater agreement study was conducted through a survey based on the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology IH prospective cohort. The survey used 50 vignettes of IH cases that were randomly selected from the cohort. It was administered twice in 2023, 1 month apart, to allow for interrater and intrarater agreement assessments. Data were analyzed in January 2024. The study involved pediatric dermatologists from North America (via the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance) and Europe (via the European Society of Pediatric Dermatologists). Exposures: Participants were asked to choose 1 of 3 treatment options (propranolol, topical timolol, or observation) for each vignette. Main Outcome and Measure: The primary outcome was the interrater agreement in treatment choices for IH cases, measured using κ statistics (Gwet AC1 coefficient). Results: The global interobserver agreement among 90 pediatric dermatologists was fair (AC1, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.29-0.46). In North America (45 pediatricians), agreement was moderate (AC1, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33-0.49), while in Europe (45 pediatricians) it was fair (AC1, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.28-0.46). The degree of agreement varied depending on the risk category of IH, with excellent agreement in high-risk IH and only moderate agreement in intermediate-risk and low-risk IHs. Propranolol was predominantly chosen for high-risk IH, while observation was most frequent for low-risk IH (55.9%). The second survey had 61 respondents, with no significant intrarater differences. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this survey study suggest that there is an important variability in the treatment of intermediate-risk and low-risk IH. The study findings support the need for more evidence regarding the role of topical timolol in IH treatment, which may help harmonize treatment approaches and improve consistency in IH management globally.
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.