Search

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest None disclosed.

Background: Appropriate primary end points in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) improve the quality of the measurement and enable comparison of the findings with those of other trials., Objective: To assess the quality of reporting primary end points in RCTs recently published in dermatology journals., Methods: We identified 134 primary reports of RCTs among original articles in 4 dermatology journals published from January 2016 to December 2018. Details were extracted from articles, supplements, and trial registries. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with adequate primary end point reporting., Results: Adequate primary end point reporting was conducted in 76 of 134 RCTs (56.7%). Nine missed the definition of primary end points, and 13 did not define the timing of primary end points in the publications. Among 113 RCTs reporting primary end points explicitly in the articles, 16 showed discrepancies between registration and publication, and 21 were not able to valuate prespecification of primary end points. Multicenter studies and sponsor-initiated trials were significantly associated with adequate reporting quality after adjusting for covariates., Limitations: Prespecification was evaluated based on a comparison of the article and registry., Conclusions: The quality of primary end point reporting, particularly in prespecification, has remained unsatisfactory in the recent dermatology literature., (Copyright © 2020 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The appropriate classification of study designs is important for review and assessment of the relevant scientific literature as a basis for decision making; however, little is known about whether study designs have been appropriately reported in the dermatology literature., Objective: We aimed to validate the study designs in the dermatology literature and investigate discrepancies between author-reported and actual study designs., Methods: We reviewed all issues of 3 major dermatology journals from January to December 2016. A total of 295 original articles investigating associations between exposures and health outcomes were included for analysis. We used a validated algorithm to classify the study designs., Results: Among the 295 articles, 174 (59.0%) clearly mentioned the study design in the text. All interventional studies were correctly classified on the basis of study design (n = 42); however, 35 of 132 observational studies (26.5%) showed discrepancies between the author-reported and actual study design. When the author-reported design was a prospective cohort, retrospective cohort, or case-control study (n = 61), approximately half of the studies were misclassified by the authors (n = 30)., Limitations: We analyzed only 3 journals in the dermatology field., Conclusions: Our findings revealed substantial discrepancies between author-reported and actual study designs in the dermatologic literature, particularly among observational studies., (Copyright © 2017 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Psoriasis is a common chronic inflammatory skin disease that may involve any skin site. In particular, psoriasis on the face gives rise to considerable concern because of associated cosmetic problems and psychosocial distress. Some authors have reported that a significant proportion of patients with psoriasis have facial involvement, and several reports have suggested that facial involvement is a marker of severe psoriasis. However, patients with facial psoriasis seem to have clinical characteristics that depend on the distributions of their facial lesions., Objective: We sought to classify facial psoriasis and evaluate clinical characteristics according to the distribution of facial psoriatic lesions, and to compare the severities of body and scalp psoriasis in patients with central or peripheral facial lesions., Methods: A total of 194 patients with psoriasis with facial involvement who presented at our psoriasis clinic were enrolled in this study. Onset of psoriasis, family history, history of phototherapy or systemic therapy, and admission history were recorded. Severity of psoriasis on whole body, face, and scalp were rated using Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) scores. Patients were categorized into 3 types according to facial lesion distribution: peripherofacial type (PF) (upper forehead and/or periauricular lesions), centrofacial type, and mixed type., Results: The PF and mixed type were more common than the centrofacial type. Peripherofacial involvement was related to a high scalp PASI score, whereas centrofacial involvement was associated with a high whole body PASI score. Disease duration before facial lesion development was less for the PF. Early onset of disease and extensive treatment were more frequent for centrofacial type than PF. The relationship between facial and body psoriasis progression was less strong for PF., Limitations: This was a retrospective study conducted at a single location, and the severity and extent of psoriasis were evaluated only once, at first visits., Conclusion: Facial psoriasis can be categorized into 3 different types. Peripherofacial involvement might be a consequence of severe scalp psoriasis, whereas centrofacial involvement might be a marker of severe body psoriasis. Thus, it would help during the treatment of patients with psoriasis to consider that different lesion distributions may reflect different clinical characteristics.