Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39964213›Full record

ArticleActa dermato-venereologica2025

Validation of the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) and a Comparison with the Recap of Atopic Eczema Questionnaire (RECAP).

Junfen Zhang, Leon Miltner, Laura Loman, Aviël Ragamin, Jart A F Oosterhaven, Marie L A Schuttelaar

Abstract readValidation StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Acta dermato-venereologica, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Junfen ZhangDermatology Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China; Department of Dermatology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. jzhang01@smu.edu.cn.
Leon MiltnerDepartment of Dermatology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands.
Laura LomanDepartment of Dermatology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands.
Aviël RagaminDepartment of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Jart A F OosterhavenDepartment of Dermatology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands.
Marie L A SchuttelaarDepartment of Dermatology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, the Netherlands. m.l.a.schuttelaar@umcg.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) has not been validated in the Dutch population, and comparisons with the Recap of atopic eczema (RECAP) questionnaire are still lacking. This prospective study was conducted at a Dutch tertiary hospital between June 2021 and December 2022, to assess measurement properties of the Dutch ADCT in adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) and compare it with RECAP. Participants completed the ADCT, RECAP, and reference instruments including Patient's Global Assessment (PtGA), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), quality-of-life questionnaire of the EuroQol Group (EQ-5D-5L), Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) peak itch/sleep disturbance, Skindex-29, and Global Rating of Change (GRC), at baseline, 1-3 days, and 4-12 weeks. Construct validity was assessed through a priori hypotheses, whilst reliability was evaluated with standard error of measurement (SEMagreement) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICCagreement). Interpretability was examined using anchor-based approaches. In total, 196 adults with AD were included. Among a priori hypotheses, 82% (single-score validity) and 59% (responsiveness) were confirmed. The SEMagreement was 1.15, and the ICCagreement was 0.983. The final bandings for the ADCT were established, with a binary cutoff of ≥ 6 indicating uncontrolled AD. The smallest detectable change (SDC) was 3.2, and the minimally important change (MIC) value from predictive modelling was 2.9. Furthermore, the ADCT exhibited high correlations with RECAP at all levels (most correlations being above 0.80). These results demonstrated the Dutch ADCT as a valid, reliable, and responsive tool, and have important clinical implications.

Indexed as

Dermatitis, AtopicAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNetherlandsPredictive Value of TestsProspective StudiesQuality of LifeReproducibility of ResultsSeverity of Illness IndexSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39964213
PMCPMC11848947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.