ImportanceAcne and rosacea have substantial implications for quality of life, and it is therefore important to ensure the patient’s voice is being captured in pivotal randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a valuable tool to capture the patient perspective, little is known about use of PROMs in RCTs on acne and rosacea.ObjectiveTo characterize the use of PROMs in RCTs on acne and rosacea.Evidence ReviewA systematic literature search was conducted using the search terms acne vulgaris and rosacea in the following databases: MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A modified search hedge for RCTs from the McGill Library was applied. All phase 2, 3, and 4 RCTs published between December 31, 2011, through December 31, 2021, that evaluated the efficacy and safety of therapies for acne and rosacea vs any comparator were eligible for inclusion.FindingsA total of 2461 publications describing RCTs were identified, of which 206 RCTs met the inclusion criteria (163 trials [79%] on acne and 43 [21%] on rosacea). At least 1 PROM was used in 53% of trials (110) included; PROM use was more common in rosacea RCTs (67% [n = 29]) compared with acne RCTs (50% [n = 81]). At least 1 dermatology-specific (13% [n = 27]) or disease-specific (14% [n = 28]) PROM was included in the RCTs analyzed. Only 7% of trials (14) included a PROM as a primary outcome measure. There was no statistically significant increase in PROM inclusion over the study period (11 of 21 trials in 2011 vs 5 of 12 trials in 2021).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this systematic review, PROMs were included in approximately one-half of acne and rosacea RCTs performed over the study period. In addition, PROMs were rarely used as a primary outcome measure, and inclusion of PROMs has not increased substantially over the past 10 years. Increasing use of PROMs in RCTs can ensure that the patient’s perspective is captured during the development of new treatments for acne and rosacea.

Background Acute appendicitis is classified into simple (SA) and complicated (CA). Ultrasound scans (USS) can be useful in clinically equivocal cases, by visualising primary and secondary signs. This study explores the utility of sonographic signs to diagnose and differentiate appendicitis in children. Methods Single-centre retrospective cohort study over a 2-year period. Consecutive USS for suspected appendicitis were included; sonographic signs were extracted from standardised institutional worksheets. USS results were compared with pre-defined intraoperative criteria for SA and CA, confirmed with histological analysis. Data are reported as median [interquartile range], percentages (number), area under the curve (AUC), conventional diagnostic formulae and adjusted odds ratios following multiple logistic regression (p < 0.05 considered significant). Results A total of 934 USS were included, with median age 10.7 [8.0–13.4] years, majority were female (54%). One quarter (n = 226) had SA, 12% (n = 113) had CA, 61% (n = 571) had no appendectomy and 3% (n = 24) had negative appendicectomy. Appendix visualisation rate on USS was 61% (n = 569), with 62% (n = 580) having a conclusive report. Sonographic signs suggesting appendicitis included an appendiceal diameter > 7 mm (AUC 0.92, [95% CI: 0.90–0.94]), an appendicolith (p = 0.003), hyperaemia (p = 0.001), non-compressibility (p = 0.029) and no luminal gas (p = 0.004). Secondary sonographic signs included probe tenderness (p < 0.001) and peri-appendiceal echogenic fat (p < 0.001). Sonographic signs suggesting CA over SA comprised a diameter > 10.1 mm (AUC 0.63, [95% CI: 0.57–0.69]), an appendicolith (p = 0.003) and peri-appendiceal fluid (p = 0.004). Conclusion Presence of specific sonographic signs can aid diagnosis and differentiation of simple and complicated appendicitis in children.

Backgrounds: Despite numerous studies investigating the use of ultrasound (US) in assessing arteriovenous fistulas (AVF), there are no universally agreed threshold flow velocities in diagnosing significantly abnormal flow that are useful in predicting thrombotic flowrelated dysfunction. This study evaluates a predictive model using receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) analyses to establish threshold velocities. Methods: Five hundred and eleven US scans were analysed. ROC curves were used to determine the optimal threshold time average mean velocity (TAMV), peak systolic velocity (PSV) and end diastolic velocity (EDV) of the brachial artery supplying the AVF in determining the need for intervention or thrombosis within 3 months of the scans. Estimated flow volume (FV) ROC was used as an evaluative comparison. Results: There were 356 negative and 155 positive scan results in relation to the need for intervention or thrombosis. Empirical flow velocity parameters of TAMV, EDV and PSV were analysed using ROC curves, yielding an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.95, 0.92 and 0.86, respectively. FV ROC analysis yields a comparative AUC of 0.90. A TAMV cut-off at 48.6 cm/s yielded the highest AUC. Subgroup analysis yielded an optimal TAMV cut-off of 45 cm/s for forearm and 49 cm/s for arm AVF. The EDV was also highly predictive of outcomes. PSV has the lowest accuracy. Conclusion:The TAMV of inflow brachial artery to AVF is highly predictive of outcomes of thrombotic flow-related dysfunction. Our study confirms TAMV cut-offs of 45 cm/s for forearm and 49 cm/s for arm AVF. These results require prospective validation.