Department of Dermatology, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Invest Dermatol. 2010 Apr;130(4):933-43. doi: 10.1038/jid.2009.391. Epub 2009 Dec 31.
A large number of clinical measures of psoriasis are used in clinical trials and daily practice. These measures lack uniformity and validation. However, valid outcome and severity measures for psoriasis are a prerequisite for fully informative clinical research and evidence-based medicine. The purpose of this study was to identify all clinical measures of psoriasis severity and outcome in use and to evaluate the quality of these measures using clinimetric criteria; we identified 53 separate clinical measures, which were regrouped into 11 measures for quality analysis. No measure could be scored on all items used in the clinimetric analysis. The Lattice System Physician's Global Assessment and Physician's Global Assessment were most highly noted. We conclude that none of the psoriasis measures is adequately validated. The Psoriasis Area and Severity Index is the most commonly used clinical measure in research, but it has substantial limitations such as low response distribution, no consensus on interpretability, and low responsiveness in mild disease. Nevertheless, because of its widespread use the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index permits some degree of comparison of results among clinical trials. Overall, no best instrument was identified, and different situations may call for different measures.
临床上大量使用银屑病的临床指标来进行临床试验和日常实践。这些指标缺乏一致性和验证。然而,银屑病的有效结局和严重程度指标是进行全面信息临床研究和循证医学的前提。本研究的目的是确定目前所有使用的银屑病严重程度和结局的临床指标,并使用临床计量学标准来评估这些指标的质量;我们共发现 53 种不同的临床指标,并将其重新分组为 11 种进行质量分析的指标。没有一种指标能够在临床计量学分析中使用的所有项目上进行评分。网格系统医生整体评估和医生整体评估得分最高。我们得出结论,没有一种银屑病指标得到充分验证。银屑病面积和严重程度指数是研究中最常用的临床指标,但它存在许多局限性,如反应分布低、可解释性缺乏共识以及轻度疾病时反应性低。尽管如此,由于其广泛应用,银屑病面积和严重程度指数可以在临床试验之间进行一定程度的结果比较。总体而言,没有发现最佳的工具,不同的情况可能需要不同的指标。