Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42716537›Full record

ArticleExperimental dermatology2026

Future Integration of Biomarkers for Inflammatory Skin Diseases Into Daily Practice: A Survey Among a Multifaceted Group of Patients and Dermatological Care Providers.

Linda T H Godding, Elke M G J de Jong, Sylvia van Beugen, Antoinette I M van Laarhoven, Els van der Pool, Nanda J Olde, Debra Trampe, Hanna Niehues, Ilse van Ee, Annemarie Sluijmers and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Experimental 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Linda T H GoddingDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-4490-8623
Elke M G J de JongDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3872-5704
Sylvia van BeugenInstitute of Psychology, Health, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8220-1807
Antoinette I M van LaarhovenInstitute of Psychology, Health, Medical and Neuropsychology Unit, Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6932-9283
Els van der PoolLectoraat Human Communication Development, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Nanda J OldeLectoraat Human Communication Development, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Debra TrampeLectoraat Human Communication Development, HAN University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Hanna NiehuesDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Ilse van EePsoriasispatiënten Nederland (PN), Nijkerk, the Netherlands.
Annemarie SluijmersNationale vereniging voor mensen met lupus, APS, sclerodermie en MCTD (NVLE), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Robert RissmannCentre for Human Drug Research (CHDR), Leiden, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5867-9090
Juul M P A van den ReekDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3642-2673
Marieke M B SeygerDepartment of Dermatology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Next Generation ImmunoDermatology Consortium (NGID)

Funding

Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek NWA.1389.20.182
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful implementation of dermatological biomarkers depends on early understanding of clinical needs and adoption barriers. Yet, research on these factors as perceived by dermatological care providers (DCPs) is scarce and perspectives of patients are largely underexplored. This survey study among patients and DCPs assessed biomarker needs and adoption barriers and facilitators for five inflammatory skin diseases: psoriasis (PsO), atopic dermatitis (AD), hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). In total, the study population consisted of 591 patients and 99 DCPs. Across all skin diseases, both groups mainly prioritized a biomarker for prediction of therapeutic response, however, DCPs prioritized this substantially more often than patients, especially for PsO (79.8% vs. 31.3% resp.), AD (68.7% vs. 37.1% resp.) and HS (66.7% vs. 34.4% resp.). Notably, a biomarker for the prediction of the risk to develop comorbidities was prioritized relatively often by patients (7.0%-19.4%), whereas DCPs only substantially prioritized this for CLE (14.1%). To enhance implementation, patients must ideally be able to undergo biomarker collection nearby their homes (travel time < 1 h) with complete reimbursement. For DCPs it is important that the biomarker is well validated, non-invasive and measurable during regular visits with preferably a short sampling time.

Indexed as

BiomarkersSkin DiseasesAdultDermatitis, AtopicFemaleHidradenitis SuppurativaHumansLupus Erythematosus, CutaneousMaleMiddle AgedPsoriasisSurveys and QuestionnairesUrticariaBiomarkersatopic dermatitischronic spontaneous urticariacutaneous lupus erythematosushidradenitis suppurativapsoriasis

Identifiers

PMID42716537
PMCPMC13557849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.