Search

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: The organization of a scientific program and the arrangement of the speakers require a considerable amount of time and effort. However, little is known about how to reinforce the participants' satisfaction with scientific programs at a large-scale academic congress with multiple parallel sessions., Objectives: This study had three main purposes: (1) to create a reference for future congresses, (2) to determine session popularity and participation rate, and (3) to identify which characteristics of sessions can affect the perception of the audience., Methods: A total of 216 scientific sessions during the 22nd World Congress of Dermatology were evaluated using printed evaluation surveys., Results: The average scores for all sessions and speakers were relatively high. There were significant differences in the numbers of total session scores, collected surveys and speakers for each session category. The number of speakers at each session was not related to the session results. It was found that among the three different session grades (excellent, fair and poor), the proportion of speakers of each grade especially contributed to the perceived quality of the poor-grade sessions., Conclusions: This survey will help to organize scientific sessions and improve the quality of academic congresses., (Copyright © 2012 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background Ultrasonography (US) has recently proved to be useful in diagnostic dermatology. It is convenient to use, completely safe, and provides valuable information. Objective This study was performed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of US with that of clinical diagnosis in patients with benign subcutaneous lesions. Methods We retrospectively examined data for 100 patients with benign subcutaneous lesions who were diagnosed with US and either biopsy or surgery at Seoul National University Boramae Hospital between January 2010 and May 2013. Results Ultrasonography significantly increased the diagnostic yield of benign subcuta-neous lesions (after physical examination [PE], 52.0%; after US, 82.0%; P < 0.005). Rates of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of lipoma were 61.5 and 92.0%, respectively, after PE, and 100 and 100%, respectively, after US. Rates of sensitivity and specificity for the diagnosis of epidermal cysts were 69.4 and 78.4%, respectively, after PE, and 91.8 and 92.2%, respectively, after US. Additionally, rates of sensitivity and specificity for pilomatrixoma were 12.5 and 98.9%, respectively, after PE, and 75.0 and 100%, respectively, after US. Although the accuracy of diagnosis of vascular anomalies and nerve sheath tumors was increased after US, the difference was not significant (vascular anomalies: 40.0% after PE and 80.0% after US; nerve sheath tumors: 28.6% after PE and 42.9% after US). Conclusions This study suggests that US is a simple and reliable tool that can aid the diagnosis of benign subcutaneous lesions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study which investigated on the health benefits of sunscreen and the behavior patterns linked to the increase of its use. Topics discussed include methodology of the study, harmful effects of exposure to sun's ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and differences in the frequency of sunscreen use among the study participants. Importance of public education campaigns regarding the importance of sunscreen is also mentioned.