ArticleDermatology and therapy2026
Criteria for Hidradenitis Suppurativa Competence Centers.
Article in Dermatology and therapy, 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHidradenitis suppurativa (HS) is a chronic, systemic, immune-mediated disease requiring multimodal care, which is crucial for raising awareness and advancing treatment. This project aimed to establish consensus among HS experts to define HS Competence Centers (HSCC) criteria using the Delphi consensus method.
methodsOverall, 22 global HS experts (3 patient representatives and 19 healthcare professionals [HCPs]) from 16 countries across 5 continents were invited to participate. Subsequently, a three-step Delphi polling was conducted among the HS experts from 20 May 2024 to 8 July 2024. A 50% agreement was required to reach consensus. Consensus levels included strong consensus (≥ 95%), consensus (≥ 75%), majority agreement (≥ 50%) and no majority agreement (< 50%).
resultsIn the prepolling step, 22 participants proposed 26 criteria. In step 1, 23 criteria were selected, of which 6 (23.1%) reached strong consensus, 11 (42.3%) reached consensus, and 6 (23.1%) majority agreement. The remaining 3 (11.5%) criteria proposed were rejected. In step 2, 13 of the 23 criteria (56.5%) were proposed for wording modifications. Of these, four (30.8%) retained initial wording and nine (69.2%) were modified. In step 3, 21 of the 23 criteria were identified as very important (91.3%), while 2 (8.7%) were considered less important. Among the 21 very important criteria, 2 (9.5%) reached strong consensus, i.e., essential, 12 (57.1%) reached consensus, and 7 (33.4%) had majority agreement. Overall, a set of 23 criteria (2 essential, 12 required-1st grade, 7 required-2nd grade, and 2 potential) was recommended to establish HSCC.
conclusionsThis article reveals a consensus among an international group of HCPs and patients on a series of evidence-based criteria for HSCC. Standardized care, a hub and spoke model, multidisciplinary teams, specialized treatments, well-defined protocols, patient education, medical training, and robust referral systems were identified as essential/very important criteria for HSCC.
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.