首页> 外文期刊>Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology: JEADV >Comparison of methods to estimate the affected body surface area and the dosage of topical treatments in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis: the advantage of a picture‐based tool
【24h】

Comparison of methods to estimate the affected body surface area and the dosage of topical treatments in psoriasis and atopic dermatitis: the advantage of a picture‐based tool

机译:估计受影响体表面积的方法的比较及牛皮癣和特应性皮炎中局部处理的剂量:基于图像的工具的优势

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Abstract Background The accurate determination of the dosage of topical treatments is important given its repercussions on patient adherence and therapeutic efficacy. Up till now, the fingertip unit calculated by the rule of hands is considered the gold standard, although its use is associated with several drawbacks. Objective To compare different methods to estimate the affected body surface area (BSA) and dosage of topical treatments in atopic dermatitis and psoriasis and investigate its reliability, user‐friendliness and timing. Methods In this study, we compared the reliability of three different methods: (i) the fingertip unit calculated by the 1% hand rule; (ii) a picture‐based tool [termed Cutaneous Inflammatory Disease Extent Score (CIDES)]; and (iii) a digital drawing tool. Eleven observers scored 40 patients with psoriasis and eczema to assess the inter‐rater and intrarater reliability. Timing was automatically recorded, and user‐friendliness was investigated by a questionnaire. Results An excellent intraclass correlation (ICC) was found for both inter‐rater agreement and intrarater agreement for the picture‐based tool (ICC?=?0.92 and ICC?=?0.96, respectively). The ICCs for drawing the area of involvement on a silhouette were 0.89 and 0.93, respectively. Finally, the rule of hands was associated with an increased inter‐rater variability although an excellent intrarater agreement was found (ICC?=?0.79 and 0.95, respectively). Automated calculation of the amount of topical treatment improved reliability, and CIDES was associated with the least variation. CIDES was considered the preferred method by all observers and was fast to perform (median: 30?s). Conclusion A picture‐based method offered the most advantages (in terms of reliability, speed and user‐friendliness) to estimate the affected BSA and calculate the dosage of topical treatments.
机译:摘要背景技术局部治疗剂量的准确测定很重要,因为它对患者粘附和治疗效果的影响很重要。到目前为止,由手规则计算的指尖单元被认为是金标准,尽管其使用与几个缺点相关联。目的比较不同方法来估算受影响的身体表面积(BSA)和局部治疗剂的特应性皮炎和牛皮癣的剂量,并研究其可靠性,用户友好性和时序。方法在本研究中,我们将三种不同方法的可靠性进行了比较:(i)由1%的手规则计算的指尖单元; (ii)基于图像的工具[治疗皮肤炎症疾病程度(CIDES)]; (iii)数字绘图工具。 11人观察者患有40例牛皮癣和湿疹患者,以评估帧内间和内在可靠性。自动记录定时,并通过问卷调查用户友好性。结果发现出色的内部腹部相关性(ICC)为帧内级别的协议和基于图片的工具(ICC?=?0.92和ICC)分别的帧间间协议和Intrariate协议。用于绘制剪影参与面积的ICC分别为0.89和0.93。最后,虽然发现了出色的内在协议自动计算局部治疗量的提高可靠性,并与最小变化相关。 Cides被所有观察者视为首选的方法,并且快速执行(中位数:30?s)。结论基于图像的方法提供了最优势(在可靠性,速度和用户友好性方面),以估计受影响的BSA并计算局部处理的剂量。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号