A systematic review of outcome reporting in laser treatments for dermatological diseases.
Journal
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology : JEADV
ISSN: 1468-3083
Titre abrégé: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9216037
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jan 2020
Jan 2020
Historique:
received:
22
01
2019
accepted:
14
08
2019
pubmed:
31
8
2019
medline:
15
12
2020
entrez:
31
8
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The standardization of outcome reporting is crucial for interpretation and comparison of studies related to laser treatment of skin disorders. In collaboration with the Cochrane Skin-Core Outcome Set Initiative (CS-COUSIN), a procedure has been proposed to find consensus on the most important generic outcome domains (what to measure) for implementation in the international Laser TrEAtment in Dermatology (LEAD) registry. As the first step in the development of a generic outcome set for the LEAD registry, we undertook a systematic review to identify outcomes, outcome measurement instruments, methods and definitions reported in recently published literature of laser treatments for skin disorders. A systematic search was conducted and generated a total of 707 papers. We assessed 150 studies including all types of studies involving laser treatments for the skin. Two researchers independently extracted the type, definition and frequency of all outcomes and used outcome measurement instruments. We identified 105 verbatim outcomes that were categorized into eight domains recommended by the COMET framework: appearance, long-term effects, physician and patient-reported physical signs, satisfaction, health-related quality of life, psychological functioning and adverse events. Heterogeneity in outcome reporting (e.g. categories and outcome measurement instruments) was high, and definitions were insufficiently reported. There was a clear under representation of life impact domains, including satisfaction (23%) quality of life (3%) and psychological functioning (1%). Outcome reporting concerning laser treatments for the skin is heterogeneous. Standardized outcomes are needed for improving evidence synthesis. Results of this review will be used in the next step to reach consensus between stakeholders on the outcome domains to be implemented in the LEAD registry.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
47-53Subventions
Organisme : European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology (EADV)
ID : EADV Project proposal reference number 2017-035
Informations de copyright
© 2019 European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.
Références
Gianfaldoni S, Tchernev G, Wollina U et al. An overview of laser in dermatology: the past, the present and … the future (?). Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2017; 5: 526-530.
Houk LD, Humphreys T. Masers to magic bullets: an updated history of lasers in dermatology. Clin Dermatol 2007; 25: 434-442.
Chiang YZ, Al-Niaimi F, Ferguson J, August PJ, Madan V. Carbon dioxide laser treatment of cutaneous neurofibromas. Dermatol Ther (Heidelb) 2012; 2: 1-6.
Ortiz AE, Zachary CB. Laser therapy for Hailey-Hailey disease: Review of the literature and a case report. Dermatol Reports 2011; 3: e28.
Gagne JJ, Thompson L, O'Keefe K, Kesselheim AS. Innovative research methods for studying treatments for rare diseases: methodological review. BMJ 2014; 349: g6802.
Comet initiative. Available at: http://www.comet-initiative.org/.
Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR et al. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: Protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “core outcome set”. Trials 2014; 15: 247.
Whistance RN, Forsythe RO, McNair AGK et al. A systematic review of outcome reporting in colorectal cancer surgery. Color Dis 2013; 15: e548-e560.
Busard CI, Nolte JYC, Pasch MC, Spuls PI. Reporting of outcomes in randomized controlled trials on nail psoriasis: A systematic review. Br J Dermatol 2017; 178: 640-649.
Eleftheriadou V, Thomas K, van Geel N et al. Developing core outcome set for vitiligo clinical trials: International e-Delphi consensus. Pigment Cell Melanoma Res 2015; 28: 363-369.
de Kleuver M, Faraj SSA, Holewijn RM et al. Defining a core outcome set for adolescent and young adult patients with a spinal deformity. Acta Orthop 2017; 88: 612-618.
Schmitt J, Deckert S, Alam M et al. Report from the kick-off meeting of the Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN). Br J Dermatol 2016; 174: 287-295.
Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H et al. The COMET handbook. Trials 2017; 18(Suppl. 3): 280.
Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG et al. Core outcome set-STAndards for reporting: The COS-STAR statement. PLoS Med 2016; 13: e1002148.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000100.
Kirkham JJ, Gorst S, Altman DG et al. COS-STAR: A reporting guideline for studies developing core outcome sets (protocol). Trials 2015; 16: 373.
Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, Mavergames C, Fish R, Williamson PR. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 96: 84-92.
Huang Y, Zhuo F, Li L. Enhancing hair growth in male androgenetic alopecia by a combination of fractional CO2 laser therapy and hair growth factors. Lasers Med Sci 2017; 32: 1711-1718.
Yuan J, Chen H, Yan R et al. Fractional CO2 lasers contribute to the treatment of stable non-segmental vitiligo. Eur J Dermatol 2016; 26: 592-598.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet (London, England) 2009; 374: 86-88.
WHO. WHO | International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). WHO. 2017. Available at: http://apps.who.int/classifications/icfbrowser/.