Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review
Valid and reliable outcome measures are needed to determine and compare treatment results of port wine stain (PWS) studies. Besides, uniformity in outcome measures is crucial to enable inter-study comparisons and meta-analyses. This study aimed to assess the heterogeneity in reported PWS outcome mea...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | PloS one 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0235657 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 7 |
| container_start_page | e0235657 |
| container_title | PloS one |
| container_volume | 15 |
| creator | van Raath, M Ingmar Chohan, Sandeep Wolkerstorfer, Albert van der Horst, Chantal M A M Limpens, Jacqueline Huang, Xuan Ding, Baoyue Storm, Gert van der Hulst, René R W J Heger, Michal |
| description | Valid and reliable outcome measures are needed to determine and compare treatment results of port wine stain (PWS) studies. Besides, uniformity in outcome measures is crucial to enable inter-study comparisons and meta-analyses. This study aimed to assess the heterogeneity in reported PWS outcome measures by mapping the (clinical) outcome measures currently used in prospective PWS studies.
OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for prospective PWS studies published from 2005 to May 2020. Interventional studies with a clinical efficacy assessment were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist.
In total, 85 studies comprising 3,310 patients were included in which 94 clinician/observer-reported clinical efficacy assessments had been performed using 46 different scoring systems. Eighty-one- studies employed a global assessment of PWS appearance/improvement, of which -82% was expressed as percentage improvement and categorized in 26 different scoring systems. A wide variety of other global and multi-item scoring systems was identified. As a result of outcome heterogeneity and insufficient data reporting, only 44% of studies could be directly compared. A minority of studies included patient-reported or objective outcomes. Thirteen studies of good quality were found.
Clinical PWS outcomes are highly heterogeneous, which hampers study comparisons and meta-analyses. Consensus-based development of a core outcome-set would benefit future research and clinical practice, especially considering the lack of high-quality trials. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1371/journal.pone.0235657 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_plos_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_plos_journals_2419692718</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A628361330</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_cd21305610f04b8888ba382fb898194e</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A628361330</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-14c6a27424198e056cced0afb4291ee89742883a03b80573cf9ac83838f742a63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNk0tr3DAQx01padK036C0gkJpD7vVww-5h8Ky9LEQCPR1FbI83tViS44kJ823r5x1wrrkUOtgMfOb_4xGmiR5SfCSsIJ82NvBGdkue2tgiSnL8qx4lJySktFFTjF7fLQ_SZ55v8c4YzzPnyYnjOYk5WV5mrh1q41WskV2CMp2gDqQfnDgkTQ18so6bbbI3_gAnUeDhxppg3pnfQ8q6CtAPgy1jrxtUG9dQNfajEapjf-IVlOoDFohB1carp8nTxrZengx_c-SX18-_1x_W5xffN2sV-cLlZc0LEiqckmLlKak5ICzXCmosWyqlJYEgJfRxTmTmFUcZwVTTSkVZ3E10SNzdpa8Puj2rfViapcXo15MUBAeic2BqK3ci97pTrobYaUWtwbrtkK6WHgLQtWUsFgEwQ1OKx6_SjJOm4qXnJQpRK1PU7ah6qBWYIKT7Ux07jF6J7b2ShSMUZxmUeDdJODs5QA-iE57BW0rDdhhrJtikublLfrmH_Th003UVsYDaNPYmFeNomKVU85ywhiO1PIBKq4aOq3i22p0tM8C3s8CIhPgT9jKwXux-fH9_9mL33P27RG7A9mGnbftELQ1fg6mB1DFR-gdNPdNJliMo3HXDTGOhphGI4a9Or6g-6C7WWB_Aa1zCQo</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2419692718</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><source>Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry</source><source>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</source><creator>van Raath, M Ingmar ; Chohan, Sandeep ; Wolkerstorfer, Albert ; van der Horst, Chantal M A M ; Limpens, Jacqueline ; Huang, Xuan ; Ding, Baoyue ; Storm, Gert ; van der Hulst, René R W J ; Heger, Michal</creator><creatorcontrib>van Raath, M Ingmar ; Chohan, Sandeep ; Wolkerstorfer, Albert ; van der Horst, Chantal M A M ; Limpens, Jacqueline ; Huang, Xuan ; Ding, Baoyue ; Storm, Gert ; van der Hulst, René R W J ; Heger, Michal</creatorcontrib><description>Valid and reliable outcome measures are needed to determine and compare treatment results of port wine stain (PWS) studies. Besides, uniformity in outcome measures is crucial to enable inter-study comparisons and meta-analyses. This study aimed to assess the heterogeneity in reported PWS outcome measures by mapping the (clinical) outcome measures currently used in prospective PWS studies.
OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for prospective PWS studies published from 2005 to May 2020. Interventional studies with a clinical efficacy assessment were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist.
In total, 85 studies comprising 3,310 patients were included in which 94 clinician/observer-reported clinical efficacy assessments had been performed using 46 different scoring systems. Eighty-one- studies employed a global assessment of PWS appearance/improvement, of which -82% was expressed as percentage improvement and categorized in 26 different scoring systems. A wide variety of other global and multi-item scoring systems was identified. As a result of outcome heterogeneity and insufficient data reporting, only 44% of studies could be directly compared. A minority of studies included patient-reported or objective outcomes. Thirteen studies of good quality were found.
Clinical PWS outcomes are highly heterogeneous, which hampers study comparisons and meta-analyses. Consensus-based development of a core outcome-set would benefit future research and clinical practice, especially considering the lack of high-quality trials.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1932-6203</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235657</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32614899</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Public Library of Science</publisher><subject>Care and treatment ; Clinical trials ; Databases, Factual ; Dermatology ; Hand surgery ; Heterogeneity ; Humans ; Laboratories ; Mapping ; Medical libraries ; Medicine and Health Sciences ; Methods ; Outcome and process assessment (Medical care) ; Patient outcomes ; Patient Reported Outcome Measures ; Patients ; Pharmaceutical sciences ; Physical Sciences ; Port-wine stain ; Port-Wine Stain - pathology ; Port-Wine Stain - therapy ; Prospective Studies ; Quality ; Research and Analysis Methods ; Scoring ; Severity of Illness Index ; Stains ; Studies ; Surgery ; Systematic review ; Wine</subject><ispartof>PloS one, 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0235657</ispartof><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Public Library of Science</rights><rights>2020 van Raath et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>2020 van Raath et al 2020 van Raath et al</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-14c6a27424198e056cced0afb4291ee89742883a03b80573cf9ac83838f742a63</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-14c6a27424198e056cced0afb4291ee89742883a03b80573cf9ac83838f742a63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0630-4465 ; 0000-0002-7362-8574 ; 0000-0002-5080-7019</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332045/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332045/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,723,776,780,860,881,2096,2915,23845,27901,27902,53766,53768,79342,79343</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32614899$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Raath, M Ingmar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chohan, Sandeep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolkerstorfer, Albert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Horst, Chantal M A M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Limpens, Jacqueline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Xuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding, Baoyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Storm, Gert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Hulst, René R W J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heger, Michal</creatorcontrib><title>Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review</title><title>PloS one</title><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><description>Valid and reliable outcome measures are needed to determine and compare treatment results of port wine stain (PWS) studies. Besides, uniformity in outcome measures is crucial to enable inter-study comparisons and meta-analyses. This study aimed to assess the heterogeneity in reported PWS outcome measures by mapping the (clinical) outcome measures currently used in prospective PWS studies.
OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for prospective PWS studies published from 2005 to May 2020. Interventional studies with a clinical efficacy assessment were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist.
In total, 85 studies comprising 3,310 patients were included in which 94 clinician/observer-reported clinical efficacy assessments had been performed using 46 different scoring systems. Eighty-one- studies employed a global assessment of PWS appearance/improvement, of which -82% was expressed as percentage improvement and categorized in 26 different scoring systems. A wide variety of other global and multi-item scoring systems was identified. As a result of outcome heterogeneity and insufficient data reporting, only 44% of studies could be directly compared. A minority of studies included patient-reported or objective outcomes. Thirteen studies of good quality were found.
Clinical PWS outcomes are highly heterogeneous, which hampers study comparisons and meta-analyses. Consensus-based development of a core outcome-set would benefit future research and clinical practice, especially considering the lack of high-quality trials.</description><subject>Care and treatment</subject><subject>Clinical trials</subject><subject>Databases, Factual</subject><subject>Dermatology</subject><subject>Hand surgery</subject><subject>Heterogeneity</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Mapping</subject><subject>Medical libraries</subject><subject>Medicine and Health Sciences</subject><subject>Methods</subject><subject>Outcome and process assessment (Medical care)</subject><subject>Patient outcomes</subject><subject>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical sciences</subject><subject>Physical Sciences</subject><subject>Port-wine stain</subject><subject>Port-Wine Stain - pathology</subject><subject>Port-Wine Stain - therapy</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Research and Analysis Methods</subject><subject>Scoring</subject><subject>Severity of Illness Index</subject><subject>Stains</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Systematic review</subject><subject>Wine</subject><issn>1932-6203</issn><issn>1932-6203</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNqNk0tr3DAQx01padK036C0gkJpD7vVww-5h8Ky9LEQCPR1FbI83tViS44kJ823r5x1wrrkUOtgMfOb_4xGmiR5SfCSsIJ82NvBGdkue2tgiSnL8qx4lJySktFFTjF7fLQ_SZ55v8c4YzzPnyYnjOYk5WV5mrh1q41WskV2CMp2gDqQfnDgkTQ18so6bbbI3_gAnUeDhxppg3pnfQ8q6CtAPgy1jrxtUG9dQNfajEapjf-IVlOoDFohB1carp8nTxrZengx_c-SX18-_1x_W5xffN2sV-cLlZc0LEiqckmLlKak5ICzXCmosWyqlJYEgJfRxTmTmFUcZwVTTSkVZ3E10SNzdpa8Puj2rfViapcXo15MUBAeic2BqK3ci97pTrobYaUWtwbrtkK6WHgLQtWUsFgEwQ1OKx6_SjJOm4qXnJQpRK1PU7ah6qBWYIKT7Ux07jF6J7b2ShSMUZxmUeDdJODs5QA-iE57BW0rDdhhrJtikublLfrmH_Th003UVsYDaNPYmFeNomKVU85ywhiO1PIBKq4aOq3i22p0tM8C3s8CIhPgT9jKwXux-fH9_9mL33P27RG7A9mGnbftELQ1fg6mB1DFR-gdNPdNJliMo3HXDTGOhphGI4a9Or6g-6C7WWB_Aa1zCQo</recordid><startdate>20200702</startdate><enddate>20200702</enddate><creator>van Raath, M Ingmar</creator><creator>Chohan, Sandeep</creator><creator>Wolkerstorfer, Albert</creator><creator>van der Horst, Chantal M A M</creator><creator>Limpens, Jacqueline</creator><creator>Huang, Xuan</creator><creator>Ding, Baoyue</creator><creator>Storm, Gert</creator><creator>van der Hulst, René R W J</creator><creator>Heger, Michal</creator><general>Public Library of Science</general><general>Public Library of Science (PLoS)</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>IOV</scope><scope>ISR</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QO</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7X2</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ARAPS</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>D1I</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0K</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>P5Z</scope><scope>P62</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PDBOC</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0630-4465</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-8574</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5080-7019</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200702</creationdate><title>Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review</title><author>van Raath, M Ingmar ; Chohan, Sandeep ; Wolkerstorfer, Albert ; van der Horst, Chantal M A M ; Limpens, Jacqueline ; Huang, Xuan ; Ding, Baoyue ; Storm, Gert ; van der Hulst, René R W J ; Heger, Michal</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c692t-14c6a27424198e056cced0afb4291ee89742883a03b80573cf9ac83838f742a63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Care and treatment</topic><topic>Clinical trials</topic><topic>Databases, Factual</topic><topic>Dermatology</topic><topic>Hand surgery</topic><topic>Heterogeneity</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Mapping</topic><topic>Medical libraries</topic><topic>Medicine and Health Sciences</topic><topic>Methods</topic><topic>Outcome and process assessment (Medical care)</topic><topic>Patient outcomes</topic><topic>Patient Reported Outcome Measures</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical sciences</topic><topic>Physical Sciences</topic><topic>Port-wine stain</topic><topic>Port-Wine Stain - pathology</topic><topic>Port-Wine Stain - therapy</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Research and Analysis Methods</topic><topic>Scoring</topic><topic>Severity of Illness Index</topic><topic>Stains</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Systematic review</topic><topic>Wine</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Raath, M Ingmar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chohan, Sandeep</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wolkerstorfer, Albert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Horst, Chantal M A M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Limpens, Jacqueline</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Huang, Xuan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ding, Baoyue</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Storm, Gert</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Hulst, René R W J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heger, Michal</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints</collection><collection>Gale In Context: Science</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Biotechnology Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Materials Science Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Agricultural Science Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Advanced Technologies & Aerospace Collection</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Materials Science Collection</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Raath, M Ingmar</au><au>Chohan, Sandeep</au><au>Wolkerstorfer, Albert</au><au>van der Horst, Chantal M A M</au><au>Limpens, Jacqueline</au><au>Huang, Xuan</au><au>Ding, Baoyue</au><au>Storm, Gert</au><au>van der Hulst, René R W J</au><au>Heger, Michal</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review</atitle><jtitle>PloS one</jtitle><addtitle>PLoS One</addtitle><date>2020-07-02</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>15</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e0235657</spage><pages>e0235657-</pages><issn>1932-6203</issn><eissn>1932-6203</eissn><abstract>Valid and reliable outcome measures are needed to determine and compare treatment results of port wine stain (PWS) studies. Besides, uniformity in outcome measures is crucial to enable inter-study comparisons and meta-analyses. This study aimed to assess the heterogeneity in reported PWS outcome measures by mapping the (clinical) outcome measures currently used in prospective PWS studies.
OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for prospective PWS studies published from 2005 to May 2020. Interventional studies with a clinical efficacy assessment were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist.
In total, 85 studies comprising 3,310 patients were included in which 94 clinician/observer-reported clinical efficacy assessments had been performed using 46 different scoring systems. Eighty-one- studies employed a global assessment of PWS appearance/improvement, of which -82% was expressed as percentage improvement and categorized in 26 different scoring systems. A wide variety of other global and multi-item scoring systems was identified. As a result of outcome heterogeneity and insufficient data reporting, only 44% of studies could be directly compared. A minority of studies included patient-reported or objective outcomes. Thirteen studies of good quality were found.
Clinical PWS outcomes are highly heterogeneous, which hampers study comparisons and meta-analyses. Consensus-based development of a core outcome-set would benefit future research and clinical practice, especially considering the lack of high-quality trials.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Public Library of Science</pub><pmid>32614899</pmid><doi>10.1371/journal.pone.0235657</doi><tpages>e0235657</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0630-4465</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7362-8574</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5080-7019</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1932-6203 |
| ispartof | PloS one, 2020-07, Vol.15 (7), p.e0235657 |
| issn | 1932-6203 1932-6203 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_plos_journals_2419692718 |
| source | MEDLINE; DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central; Free Full-Text Journals in Chemistry; Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| subjects | Care and treatment Clinical trials Databases, Factual Dermatology Hand surgery Heterogeneity Humans Laboratories Mapping Medical libraries Medicine and Health Sciences Methods Outcome and process assessment (Medical care) Patient outcomes Patient Reported Outcome Measures Patients Pharmaceutical sciences Physical Sciences Port-wine stain Port-Wine Stain - pathology Port-Wine Stain - therapy Prospective Studies Quality Research and Analysis Methods Scoring Severity of Illness Index Stains Studies Surgery Systematic review Wine |
| title | Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T18%3A14%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_plos_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Clinical%20outcome%20measures%20and%20scoring%20systems%20used%20in%20prospective%20studies%20of%20port%20wine%20stains:%20A%20systematic%20review&rft.jtitle=PloS%20one&rft.au=van%20Raath,%20M%20Ingmar&rft.date=2020-07-02&rft.volume=15&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e0235657&rft.pages=e0235657-&rft.issn=1932-6203&rft.eissn=1932-6203&rft_id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657&rft_dat=%3Cgale_plos_%3EA628361330%3C/gale_plos_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2419692718&rft_id=info:pmid/32614899&rft_galeid=A628361330&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_cd21305610f04b8888ba382fb898194e&rfr_iscdi=true |