ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2025
Patient-reported outcome assessment of adults and adolescents with atopic dermatitis: a cross-sectional qualitative interview study.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Atopic Dermatitis Beyond the Skin Barrier: Precision Medicine Approaches to Immunological Profiling and Therapeutic Innovation.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease that impacts patient health and quality of life. Understanding patient experience of relevant symptoms and impacts of AD is crucial for improving outcomes. This study aimed to characterise adult (≥ 18 years) and adolescent (12-17 years) patients' experiences of AD and assess the content validity of selected patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODOLOGY: This non-interventional, cross-sectional, qualitative study recruited US-based, English-speaking adults and adolescents with moderate-to-severe AD, either naïve or experienced with biologics. A 90-minute interview was conducted via teleconferencing software, consisting of concept elicitation (CE) of AD experiences and cognitive debriefing (CD), where participants provided feedback on PROs assessing skin pain, sleep disturbance, and fatigue. Interview data were coded and analysed using qualitative data software to determine the AD experience and content validity of selected PROs. A conceptual disease model was developed from the CE portion of the interview. Results from the CD portion were mapped to this model to evaluate the conceptual coverage of the PROs.
resultsIn total, 16 adults (mean age 48 years, 56% White, 63% female, 50% biologic naïve) and 20 adolescents (mean age 16 years, 60% White, 75% female, 50% biologic naïve) were included in the analysis. During CE, 13 symptoms and impacts in 7 domains were identified. The most reported symptom was itchiness (adults, 100%; adolescents, 100%) and the most reported impact was emotional functioning (adults, 94%; adolescents 95%). Participants also commonly reported experiencing pain/discomfort (adults, 69%; adolescents, 80%) and sleep disturbance (adults, 88%; adolescents, 75%). Fatigue was reported by 94% of adults across CE and CD segments. When probed during CE, 65% of adolescents identified fatigue as an impact of AD. During CD, 70-100% of participants confirmed the selected PROs were comprehensible and relevant.
conclusionsThis study provides evidence that the experience of AD is similar between adults and adolescents as well as biologic-naïve and biologic-experienced participants. Relevant disease concepts in patients with AD were identified, and content validity was established for the selected PROs, supporting their use in future clinical studies.
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.