Cargando…

Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review

BACKGROUND: 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32614899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657
_version_ 1783553449386835968
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_facet 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 van Raath, M. Ingmar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7332045
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73320452020-07-15 Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review 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 PLoS One Research Article BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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. Public Library of Science 2020-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC7332045/ /pubmed/32614899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657 Text en © 2020 van Raath et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
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
Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review
title Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review
title_full Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review
title_fullStr Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review
title_full_unstemmed Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review
title_short Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review
title_sort clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: a systematic review
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332045/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32614899
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657
work_keys_str_mv AT vanraathmingmar clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT chohansandeep clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT wolkerstorferalbert clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT vanderhorstchantalmam clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT limpensjacqueline clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT huangxuan clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT dingbaoyue clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT stormgert clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT vanderhulstrenerwj clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview
AT hegermichal clinicaloutcomemeasuresandscoringsystemsusedinprospectivestudiesofportwinestainsasystematicreview