ReviewInternational journal of dermatology2026
Position Statement of the EADV Task Forces With External Experts on Quality of Life Measurement in Hidradenitis Suppurativa: An Update.
Review in International journal of dermatology, 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
29 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) has a profound negative impact on patients' Quality of Life (QoL). The European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV) Task Force (TF) on QoL and Patient Oriented Outcomes and TF on Acne, Rosacea and Hidradenitis Suppurativa (ARHS), together with external experts, decided to provide an updated position statement on QoL measurement in HS. In our previous position statement on HS, we stated that a Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) score of 0-1, corresponding to no effect on patient's life according to the DLQI banding descriptions, may be considered as a difficult to reach but important treatment goal: achievement of this goal has since been used as an efficacy criterion in several clinical trials. For many HS treatment methods, there is still a lack of well-organized randomized clinical trials with sufficient participant numbers in which QoL instruments have been used as outcome measures. The DLQI is the most widely used QoL instrument in HS. Clinical recommendations and treatment efficacy are based on its score grading system and minimal clinically important difference (MCID). The HS-specific QoL instruments HSIA, HSQoL-24, HiSQOL, and QoL-HS have a satisfactory number of items for routine clinical use and short recall periods. HiSQOL and HSQoL-24 have score grading systems and the MCID for HiSQOL has been established. The TF on QoL and Patient Oriented Outcomes and TF on ARHS recommend that QoL be assessed in HS: dermatology-specific and HS-specific instruments may be used alongside each other.
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.