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

PLoS One

Department of Pharmaceutics, Jiaxing Key Laboratory for Photonanomedicine and Experimental Therapeutics, College of Medicine, Jiaxing University, Jiaxing, Zhejiang, PR China.

Published: September 2020

AI Article Synopsis

  • - The study investigated the variety of outcome measures used in port wine stain (PWS) research to identify inconsistencies that hinder treatment comparisons and meta-analyses.
  • - A total of 85 studies with over 3,300 patients were reviewed, revealing 46 different clinical efficacy scoring systems, with only 44% of studies being comparable due to this variability.
  • - The authors concluded that creating a consensus-based core outcome set is essential for improving future PWS research and clinical practices, especially given the limited number of high-quality trials.

Article Abstract

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.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7332045PMC
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235657PLOS

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

outcome measures
20
scoring systems
16
studies
9
clinical outcome
8
port wine
8
pws studies
8
comparisons meta-analyses
8
prospective pws
8
clinical efficacy
8
clinical
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!