ArticleAnnals of dermatology2025
Clinical Validation of the Updated Korean Atopic Dermatitis Diagnostic Criteria in a Hospital Setting in South Korea.
Article in Annals of dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAtopic dermatitis (AD) is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease whose diagnosis relies on clinical presentation and history due to the absence of definitive diagnostic tests or biomarkers. The Korean Atopic Dermatitis Association (KADA) recently updated its diagnostic criteria to enhance accuracy and applicability.
objectiveThis study validates the updated KADA criteria by assessing their diagnostic performance in a clinical setting and comparing them with the previous KADA and Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA) criteria.
methodsA multicenter, cross-sectional study was conducted with 231 AD patients and 81 non-AD controls. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), Youden's index, and error rates for the criteria and individual clinical features included were analyzed.
resultsThe updated KADA criteria demonstrated the highest sensitivity (63.20%) compared to the previous KADA (61.04%) and JDA criteria (47.62%), enabling better identification of a broader range of AD phenotypes. While its specificity (82.72%) was slightly lower than that of the previous KADA (88.89%) and JDA criteria (95.06%), the updated criteria maintained a strong PPV of 91.01% and a comparable NPV of 44.10%. The Youden's index for the updated criteria was 0.459, indicating a balanced trade-off between sensitivity and specificity, and the error rate was the lowest (31.41%), underscoring its enhanced overall diagnostic accuracy.
conclusionThe updated KADA criteria provide a practical and intuitive diagnostic tool, effectively addressing the limitations of previous criteria and improving the efficient and comprehensive diagnosis of AD, especially in those with diverse presentations.
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.