Measurement properties of quality of life measurement instruments for infants, children and adolescents with eczema: protocol for a systematic review

Background: Eczema is a common chronic or chronically relapsing skin disease that has a substantial impact on quality of life (QoL). By means of a consensus-based process, the Harmonising Outcome Measures in Eczema (HOME) initiative has identified QoL as one of the four core outcome domains to be assessed in all eczema trials. Few measurement instruments exist to measure QoL in infants and children with eczema, but there is a great variability in both content and quality (for example, reliability and validity) of the instruments used, and it is not always clear if the best instrument is being used. Therefore, the aim of the proposed research is a comprehensive systematic assessment of the measurement properties of the existing measurement instruments that were developed and/or validated for the measurement of patient-reported QoL in infants and children with eczema. Methods/Design: This study is a systematic review of the measurement properties of patient-reported measures of QoL developed and/or validated for infants and children with eczema. Medline via PubMed and EMBASE will be searched using a selection of relevant search terms. Eligible studies will be primary empirical studies evaluating, describing, or comparing measurement properties of QoL instruments for infants and children with eczema. Eligibility assessment and data abstraction will be performed independently by two reviewers. Evidence tables will be generated for study characteristics, instrument characteristics, measurement properties, and interpretability. The adequacy of the measurement properties will be assessed using predefined criteria. Methodological quality of studies will be assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. A best evidence synthesis will be undertaken if more than one study has investigated a particular measurement property. Discussion: The proposed systematic review will produce a comprehensive assessment of measurement properties of existing QoL instruments in infants and children with eczema. We aim to identify one best currently available instrument to measure QoL in infants and/or children with eczema

The majority of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals are not registered and do not have a publicly accessible protocol:a scoping review

Objectives: Observational studies are not subject to the same requirements as randomized controlled trials, such as registration or publishing a protocol. The aim of this scoping review was to estimate the registration rate of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals and to evaluate whether protocols were available in the public domain. Study Design and Setting: In March 2023, we searched OVID Medline for observational studies published in 2022 in the top five general medicine journals according to impact factor (The Lancet, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine). We defined an observational study as a cohort study, a case-control study, a cross-sectional study, or a case series. Information on i) the proportion of observational studies that have been registered and ii) the proportion of observational studies that have a protocol available in the public domain was extracted from a random sample of studies. Results: Our search identified 699 studies; 290 studies were selected as full text, and a random sample of 200 studies was included. For half of the studies, the first author worked at a US institution. Most studies were cohort studies (n = 126, 63.0%) and used administrative healthcare records, electronic healthcare records, and registries. Of the 200 observational studies, 20 (10.0%) were registered. Among those, 14 were prospectively registered. Twenty-four studies (12.0%) had a protocol available in the public domain. Studies that were registered or had a protocol, were more frequently published in the BMJ (n = 12/28, 42.9%), had a first author working in the UK (n = 10/28, 35.7%) and used electronic health care records (n = 13/28, 46.4%) compared to studies with no registration and no protocol. Conclusion: The rate of prospectively registered observational studies is worryingly low. Prospective registration of observational studies should be encouraged and standardized to ensure transparency in clinical research and reduce research waste.</p

The majority of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals are not registered and do not have a publicly accessible protocol:a scoping review

Objectives: Observational studies are not subject to the same requirements as randomized controlled trials, such as registration or publishing a protocol. The aim of this scoping review was to estimate the registration rate of observational studies in leading peer-reviewed medicine journals and to evaluate whether protocols were available in the public domain. Study Design and Setting: In March 2023, we searched OVID Medline for observational studies published in 2022 in the top five general medicine journals according to impact factor (The Lancet, The British Medical Journal (BMJ), The Journal of the American Medical Association, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Annals of Internal Medicine). We defined an observational study as a cohort study, a case-control study, a cross-sectional study, or a case series. Information on i) the proportion of observational studies that have been registered and ii) the proportion of observational studies that have a protocol available in the public domain was extracted from a random sample of studies. Results: Our search identified 699 studies; 290 studies were selected as full text, and a random sample of 200 studies was included. For half of the studies, the first author worked at a US institution. Most studies were cohort studies (n = 126, 63.0%) and used administrative healthcare records, electronic healthcare records, and registries. Of the 200 observational studies, 20 (10.0%) were registered. Among those, 14 were prospectively registered. Twenty-four studies (12.0%) had a protocol available in the public domain. Studies that were registered or had a protocol, were more frequently published in the BMJ (n = 12/28, 42.9%), had a first author working in the UK (n = 10/28, 35.7%) and used electronic health care records (n = 13/28, 46.4%) compared to studies with no registration and no protocol. Conclusion: The rate of prospectively registered observational studies is worryingly low. Prospective registration of observational studies should be encouraged and standardized to ensure transparency in clinical research and reduce research waste.</p

Protocol for the development of a core domain set for hand eczema trials

Background Clinical hand eczema trials measure a variety of outcome domains to determine the success of interventions. This considerably limits the comparability and overall confidence in the study results, and thereby the strength of recommendations for clinical practice. Objectives The Hand Eczema Core Outcome Set (HECOS) initiative aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for the standardized evaluation of interventions in future hand eczema trials and reviews. This COS will define the minimum that should be measured and reported in controlled and randomized-controlled trials of therapeutic hand eczema interventions. The objective of this protocol is to specify the methods to develop a core domain set. Methods In Phase 1, a list of candidate domains will be derived from a systematic literature review concerning previously measured outcomes in hand eczema trials, from qualitative patient interviews and from expert interviews. In Phase 2, a consensus study about core domains will be conducted by an online 3-round Delphi survey and a face-to-face meeting, applying predefined consensus criteria. HECOS involves hand eczema and methods experts as well as patients and further stakeholders with an interest in the initiative. Outlook When a set of core domains has been defined, HECOS is going to identify appropriate outcome measurement instruments in a development process that will be detailed in another protocol. The COS will considerably enhance the methodological quality, comparability and usefulness of hand eczema trials for clinical decision-making and the development of new therapeutic options for hand eczema, and also reduce the effort of planning, conducting, and reporting individual hand eczema studies, reviews and meta-analyses

TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce: consensus on how and when to measure the core dataset for atopic eczema treatment research registries.

BackgroundComparative, real-life and long-term evidence on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in moderate-to-severe atopic eczema (AE) is limited. Such data must come from well-designed prospective patient registries. Standardization of data collection is needed for direct comparisons and data pooling.ObjectivesTo reach a consensus on how and when to measure the previously defined domain items of the TREatment of ATopic eczema (TREAT) Registry Taskforce core dataset for research registries for paediatric and adult patients with AE.MethodsProposals for the measurement instruments were based on recommendations of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative, the existing AE database of TREATgermany, systematic reviews of the literature and expert opinions. The proposals were discussed at three face-to-face consensus meetings, one teleconference and via e-mail. The frequency of follow-up visits was determined by an expert survey.ResultsA total of 16 experts from seven countries participated in the 'how to measure' consensus process and 12 external experts were consulted. A consensus was reached for all domain items on how they should be measured by assigning measurement instruments. A minimum follow-up frequency of initially 4 weeks after commencing treatment, then every 3 months while on treatment and every 6 months while off treatment was defined.ConclusionsThis core dataset for national AE research registries will aid in the comparability and pooling of data across centres and country borders, and enables international collaboration to assess the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy used in patients with AE. What's already known about this topic? Comparable, real-life and long-term data on the effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in patients with atopic eczema (AE) are needed. There is a high diversity of outcomes and instruments used in AE research, which require harmonization to enhance comparability and allow data pooling. What does this study add? Our taskforce has reached international consensus on how and when to measure core domain items for national AE research registries. This core dataset is now available for use by researchers worldwide and will aid in the collection of unified data. What are the clinical implications of this work? The data collected through this core dataset will help to gain better insights into the long-term effectiveness and safety of phototherapy and systemic therapy in AE and will provide important information for clinical practice. Standardization of such data collection at the national level will also allow direct data comparisons and pooling across country borders (e.g. in the analysis of treatment-related adverse events that require large patient numbers)

Lifetime prevalence and determinants of hand eczema in an adolescent population in Germany: 15-year follow-up of the LISA cohort study

Background Hand eczema is a common inflammatory skin disorder in both adolescence and adulthood. Objectives We sought to assess the lifetime prevalence of hand eczema and associated exogenous and endogenous risk factors among adolescents in Germany. Methods This was a cross-sectional study embedded into a prospective population-based birth cohort in four regions of Germany, which recruited healthy neonates born between November 1997 and January 1999. We included 1736 participants who had completed the 15-year follow-up from birth cohort and 84.6% (1468/1736) had clearly reported whether they have ever had hand eczema. All the data were based on questionnaires and blood tests (immunoglobulin E). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to examine endogenous and exogenous factors in relation to the lifetime prevalence of hand eczema among adolescents. Results One thousand four hundred and sixty-eight adolescents (715 girls, 48.7%) were included in the final analysis. The lifetime prevalence of hand eczema among adolescents at the age of 15 was 10.4% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8.9%-12.1%), with a significantly higher lifetime prevalence among girls than boys (12.7% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.005). Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated statistically significant associations between the lifetime prevalence of hand eczema and having ever been diagnosed with atopic dermatitis (aOR = 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-2.8) or having ever had dry skin (aOR = 1.9, 95% CI: 1.1-3.1), respectively. No statistically significant independent associations were found between asthma, hay fever, allergy-related clinical symptoms, immunoglobulin E positivity and other exogenous factors in relation to hand eczema. Conclusion Our study fills a research gap on the epidemiological burden of hand eczema among adolescents. One out of ten ever suffered from hand eczema until age 15 years indicating that hand eczema constitutes a significant burden in paediatric populations. The role of atopic dermatitis in hand eczema reinforces previous findings. Exogenous risk factors warrant further investigation

Standardized reporting of the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM): a recommendation by the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) Initiative

Several organizations from multiple fields of medicine are setting standards for clinical research including protocol development,1 harmonization of outcome reporting,2 statistical analysis,3 quality assessment4 and reporting of findings.1 Clinical research standardization facilitates the interpretation and synthesis of data, increases the usability of trial results for guideline groups and shared decision‐making, and reduces selective outcome reporting bias. The mission of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative is to establish an agreed‐upon core set of outcomes to be measured and reported in all clinical trials of atopic dermatitis (AD)

Factors associated with generic health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD): a cross-sectional study

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is impaired in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients, but determining factors for HRQOL are still not unequivocal. This study measures HRQOL among patients with COPD and aims to determine factors associated with HRQOL. Methods: Data for cross-sectional analyses were obtained from the baseline of a cohort study. The study population includes adult COPD patients (disease duration >= 3 months), recruited from primary and secondary care settings in Germany, without acute psychiatric/neurologic disease (exception: affective/anxiety disorders). HRQOL was assessed using the Short-Form 12 (SF-12) Health Survey Questionnaire, comprising a physical and mental component. Independent variables encompass socio-demographic, disease-specific, treatment-related and psychological factors. Multivariable linear regression analyses were conducted. Results: In total, 206 COPD patients (60.7% male; mean age: 65.3 years) took part in the study. In multivariable analysis, the physical component score showed a significant negative association with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) (P<0.001) and a higher total number of prescribed medications (P=0.001). A higher forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) value in percent predicted was significantly related to the physical component score in a positive manner (P=0.006). The mental component score was significantly associated with elevated patient-reported symptoms of anxiety (P=0.002) or depression (P<0.001), measured by the hospital anxiety and depression scale (HADS) in a negative way. Like for the physical component score (P<0.001), a worse CAT score was significantly associated with a lower mental component score (P=0.033). Conclusions: Focusing on patient reported outcomes and screening for depression and anxiety with potential successive treatment might be promising approaches to improve HRQOL in patients with COPD

Report from the third international consensus meeting to harmonise core outcome measures for atopic eczema/dermatitis clinical trials (HOME).

This report provides a summary of the third meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in San Diego, CA, U.S.A., 6-7 April 2013 (HOME III). The meeting addressed the four domains that had previously been agreed should be measured in every eczema clinical trial: clinical signs, patient-reported symptoms, long-term control and quality of life. Formal presentations and nominal group techniques were used at this working meeting, attended by 56 voting participants (31 of whom were dermatologists). Significant progress was made on the domain of clinical signs. Without reference to any named scales, it was agreed that the intensity and extent of erythema, excoriation, oedema/papulation and lichenification should be included in the core outcome measure for the scale to have content validity. The group then discussed a systematic review of all scales measuring the clinical signs of eczema and their measurement properties, followed by a consensus vote on which scale to recommend for inclusion in the core outcome set. Research into the remaining three domains was presented, followed by discussions. The symptoms group and quality of life groups need to systematically identify all available tools and rate the quality of the tools. A definition of long-term control is needed before progress can be made towards recommending a core outcome measure

A qualitative study of the impact of severe asthma and its treatment showing that treatment burden is neglected in existing asthma assessment scales

Background People with severe asthma experience significant respiratory symptoms and suffer adverse effects of oral corticosteroids (OCS), including disturbed mood and physical symptoms. OCS impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) have not been quantified. Asthma HRQoL scales are valid as outcome measures for patients requiring OCS only if they assess the deficits imposed by OCS. Aims The aim of this study was to compare the burden of disease and treatment in patients with severe asthma with items in eight asthma-specific HRQoL scales. Methods Twenty-three patients with severe asthma recruited from a severe asthma clinic were interviewed about the impact of their respiratory symptoms and the burden of their treatment. The domains from a thematic analysis of these interviews were compared with the items of eight asthma-specific HRQoL scales. Results In addition to the burden caused by symptoms, ten domains of OCS impact on HRQoL were identified: depression, irritability, sleep, hunger, weight, skin, gastric, pain, disease anxiety, and medication anxiety. Some patients experienced substantial HRQoL deficits attributed to OCS. Although all HRQoL scales include some OCS-relevant items, all eight scales fail to adequately assess the several types of burden experienced by some patients while on OCS. Conclusion The burden of OCS in severe asthma is neglected in policy and practice because it is not assessed in outcome studies. Existing asthma HRQoL scales provide an overly positive estimation of HRQoL in patients with frequent exposure to OCS and underestimate the benefit of interventions that reduce OCS exposure. Changes to existing measurement procedures are needed