Validation of remote atopic dermatitis severity assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Ondex in children using caregiver-provided photos and videos.
atopic dermatitis
eczema
Journal
Pediatric dermatology
ISSN: 1525-1470
Titre abrégé: Pediatr Dermatol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8406799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Jul 2022
Jul 2022
Historique:
revised:
19
02
2022
received:
25
11
2021
accepted:
27
03
2022
pubmed:
7
5
2022
medline:
27
8
2022
entrez:
6
5
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
We sought to quantify the reliability and validity of remote atopic dermatitis (AD) severity assessment using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) applied to caregiver-provided photos (p-EASI) and videos (v-EASI). Children (0-17 years) with a physician diagnosis of AD were recruited. Caregivers took photos and a video of their child's skin. A clinician scored in-person EASI on the same day, then p-EASI and v-EASI for each participant 10 days or more between ratings. Two additional clinicians scored p-EASI and v-EASI. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was employed to assess criterion validity using in-person EASI as the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess interrater reliability of p-EASI and v-EASI. Fifty racially and ethnically diverse children (age [mean ± SD]: 4.3 ± 4.4 years; 42% female) with a range of AD severity (EASI: 6.3 ± 6.4) and Fitzpatrick skin types (1-2: 9%; 3-4: 60%; 5-6: 31%) were enrolled and received in-person EASI assessment. Fifty had p-EASI and 49 had v-EASI by the same in-person rater, and by two additional raters. The CCC and ICC for p-EASI were 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.95] and 0.81, 95% CI [0.71, 0.89], respectively. The CCC and ICC for v-EASI were 0.75, 95% CI [0.63, 0.88] and 0.69, 95% CI [0.51, 0.81], respectively. In this diverse population with a range of skin tones, p-EASI showed good criterion validity and good interrater reliability. v-EASI showed moderate to good criterion validity and moderate interrater reliability. Both may be reliable and valid options for remote AD severity assessment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
We sought to quantify the reliability and validity of remote atopic dermatitis (AD) severity assessment using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) applied to caregiver-provided photos (p-EASI) and videos (v-EASI).
METHODS
METHODS
Children (0-17 years) with a physician diagnosis of AD were recruited. Caregivers took photos and a video of their child's skin. A clinician scored in-person EASI on the same day, then p-EASI and v-EASI for each participant 10 days or more between ratings. Two additional clinicians scored p-EASI and v-EASI. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was employed to assess criterion validity using in-person EASI as the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess interrater reliability of p-EASI and v-EASI.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Fifty racially and ethnically diverse children (age [mean ± SD]: 4.3 ± 4.4 years; 42% female) with a range of AD severity (EASI: 6.3 ± 6.4) and Fitzpatrick skin types (1-2: 9%; 3-4: 60%; 5-6: 31%) were enrolled and received in-person EASI assessment. Fifty had p-EASI and 49 had v-EASI by the same in-person rater, and by two additional raters. The CCC and ICC for p-EASI were 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.95] and 0.81, 95% CI [0.71, 0.89], respectively. The CCC and ICC for v-EASI were 0.75, 95% CI [0.63, 0.88] and 0.69, 95% CI [0.51, 0.81], respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
In this diverse population with a range of skin tones, p-EASI showed good criterion validity and good interrater reliability. v-EASI showed moderate to good criterion validity and moderate interrater reliability. Both may be reliable and valid options for remote AD severity assessment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35522088
doi: 10.1111/pde.15003
pmc: PMC9420774
mid: NIHMS1795293
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
547-552Subventions
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : R01 ES026170
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01ES023447
Pays : United States
Organisme : Pfizer
ID : Dermatology Research Fellowship
Organisme : NIEHS NIH HHS
ID : R01 ES023447
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : R01ES026170
Pays : United States
Organisme : Dell Medical School at The University of Texas at Austin
ID : Core Funds
Organisme : Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance
ID : Research Fellowship Grant
Organisme : NINR NIH HHS
ID : T32NR019035
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : K24AI114769
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINR NIH HHS
ID : T32 NR019035
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K24 AI114769
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
Lancet. 1986 Feb 8;1(8476):307-10
pubmed: 2868172
JMIR Form Res. 2021 May 25;5(5):e24766
pubmed: 34032580
J Chiropr Med. 2016 Jun;15(2):155-63
pubmed: 27330520
Dermatology. 2011;223(1):68-73
pubmed: 21865675
J Am Acad Dermatol. 2021 Sep;85(3):725-726
pubmed: 30703454
Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jul;185(1):198-199
pubmed: 33666245
Br J Dermatol. 2017 Apr;176(4):985-992
pubmed: 28012183
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2015 Jun 05;25(2):141-51
pubmed: 26110027
Dermatology. 2017;233(1):16-22
pubmed: 28494438
Biometrics. 1989 Mar;45(1):255-68
pubmed: 2720055
Cutis. 2020 Feb;105(2):77-80
pubmed: 32186531
Int J Womens Dermatol. 2015 Aug 06;1(3):150-154
pubmed: 28491979
JAMA Dermatol. 2021 Feb 1;157(2):213-219
pubmed: 33325988
Clin Dermatol. 2018 Sep - Oct;36(5):616-630
pubmed: 30217274
J Invest Dermatol. 2022 Feb;142(2):364-381
pubmed: 34352262