Differences in Psychometric Properties of Clinician- and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Atopic Dermatitis by Race and Skin Tone: A Systematic Review

Kaundinya, Trisha; Rakita, Uros; Feldman, SR; Abboud, Donna Maria; Croce, Emily; Thyssen, Jacob P.; Alexis, Andrew F.; Silverberg, Jonathan I.

doi:10.1016/j.jid.2021.06.033

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 163 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is important because very few diagnostic tools for AD have been validated in diverse populations. 17 Taken altogether, our findings suggest that p-EASI may be the better option compared with v-EASI, although p-EASI and v-EASI were not compared head-to-head in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

“…In this study, using caregiver provided photos and videos to assess EASI scores was reliable, valid, feasible, and acceptable among children with diverse skin types and racial and ethnic identities. This is important because very few diagnostic tools for AD have been validated in diverse populations 17 . Taken altogether, our findings suggest that p‐EASI may be the better option compared with v‐EASI, although p‐EASI and v‐EASI were not compared head‐to‐head in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Validation of remote atopic dermatitis severity assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Ondex in children using caregiver‐provided photos and videos

Croce

Rathouz

Lopes

et al. 2022

Pediatric Dermatology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/Objectives: We sought to quantify the reliability and validity of remote atopic dermatitis (AD) severity assessment using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) applied to caregiver-provided photos (p-EASI) and videos (v-EASI).Methods: Children (0-17 years) with a physician diagnosis of AD were recruited.Caregivers took photos and a video of their child's skin. A clinician scored in-person EASI on the same day, then p-EASI and v-EASI for each participant 10 days or more between ratings. Two additional clinicians scored p-EASI and v-EASI. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was employed to assess criterion validity using in-person EASI as the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess interrater reliability of p-EASI and v-EASI.Results: Fifty racially and ethnically diverse children (age [mean ± SD]: 4.3 ± 4.4 years; 42% female) with a range of AD severity (EASI: 6.3 ± 6.4) and Fitzpatrick skin types (1-2: 9%; 3-4: 60%; 5-6: 31%) were enrolled and received in-person EASI assessment. Fifty had p-EASI and 49 had v-EASI by the same inperson rater, and by two additional raters. The CCC and ICC for p-EASI were 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.95] and 0.81, 95% CI [0.71, 0.89], respectively. The CCC and ICC for v-EASI were 0.75, 95% CI [0.63, 0.88] and 0.69, 95% CI [0.51, 0.81], respectively. Conclusions:In this diverse population with a range of skin tones, p-EASI showed good criterion validity and good interrater reliability. v-EASI showed moderate to good criterion validity and moderate interrater reliability. Both may be reliable and valid options for remote AD severity assessment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 80%