ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2026
A mixed-methods online survey approach using retrospective self-reporting to characterise congenital ichthyoses across age groups.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ichthyoses are a group of rare, dermatological conditions characterised by dry, thickened scales across the body and impaired skin barrier function. Although ichthyosis may be acquired, the majority of cases are congenital and caused by specific genetic variants. The ichthyoses can cause multiple skin-related issues (e.g. increased risk of infection) and can also have substantial downstream effects on mental health and quality of life; moreover, they are commonly comorbid with a range of medical conditions. Although the symptoms associated with the various ichthyosis subtypes have been reasonably well-defined, how these change over time, and how they compare to one another, has not yet been systematically investigated. Using an online survey approach, we obtained detailed quantitative and qualitative data from adults diagnosed with congenital ichthyosis who self-reported on their skin-related and medical symptoms, and the impact of these, across six time periods; we also obtained data on factors self-reported to contribute to changing health over time, and on participants’ future health concerns.
resultsWe recruited a total of 222 adult participants diagnosed with a range of ichthyosis subtypes: ichthyosis vulgaris (n = 86), autosomal recessive congenital ichthyosis (n = 67), X-linked ichthyosis (n = 34), epidermolytic ichthyosis (n = 30) and Netherton syndrome (n = 8). We showed that the ichthyoses have a lifelong impact on quality of life, particularly for more severe subtypes, but that this diminishes over time and correlates with skin health. Participants with the more severe forms of ichthyosis self-reported adverse effects throughout life on homeostatic health (e.g. ability to maintain body temperature) and in mid-late middle age on mobility and autoimmune health. These participants also reported consistently relatively poor mental health across life, whereas participants with milder forms of ichthyosis reported more variable mental health outcomes across life. Cardiac and metabolic health were generally regarded as being reasonable throughout life across all ichthyosis subtypes. Participants were most concerned about future worsening of their skin condition and associated medical conditions.
conclusionsOur data provide new information on how ichthyosis subtypes vary, and compare, at different ages. This information is important for identifying optimal intervention points, and for improving genetic counselling processes.
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.