Berg Sara A, Yeung Howa, English Joseph C, Keimig Emily L, Kim Ellen J, Micheletti Robert G, Wanat Karolyn A, Judson Marc A, Baughman Robert P, Rosenbach Misha
University of Pennsylvania, Department of Dermatology, Philadelphia, PA.
Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Atlanta, GA.
Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis. 2017;34(2):165-169. doi: 10.36141/svdld.v34i2.5434. Epub 2017 Apr 28.
Recently two outcome instruments have been developed and validated for assessing cutaneous sarcoidosis in a live, in-person setting. Teledermatology is a rapidly growing field; yet, to date, no instrument has been validated for use in a remote setting, which could ultimately impact clinical trial design. To assess the interrater reliability of these outcome instruments for store-and-forward teledermatology. Seven sarcoidosis experts, including both pulmonologists and dermatologists, scored photographs of cutaneous sarcoidosis lesions in 13 patients utilizing the Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Index (CSAMI), the Sarcoidosis Activity and Severity Index (SASI) and the Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Interrater reliability was assessed for each instrument and was compared to results obtained from a prior study involving sarcoidosis experts evaluating the same patient population in an in-person setting. Interrater reliability (presented as ICC [95%CI]) was poor for the CSAMI Activity scale (0.36 [0.16 - 0.65]) and the CSAMI Damage scale (0.17 [0.04 - 0.43]) and was fair for the Modified Facial SASI (0.59 [0.36 - 0.82]) and the PGA (0.47 [0.23 - 0.74]). All results were inferior to those obtained from the prior studies validating these instruments for in-person use. Given the superiority of these instruments when utilized in person, it is recommended to have an on-site sarcoidosis expert evaluate cutaneous sarcoidosis lesions whenever possible. .
最近开发并验证了两种用于在现场面对面环境中评估皮肤结节病的结局评估工具。远程皮肤病学是一个快速发展的领域;然而,迄今为止,尚无工具被验证可用于远程环境,这最终可能会影响临床试验设计。为了评估这些结局评估工具在存储转发远程皮肤病学中的评分者间信度。七名结节病专家,包括肺科医生和皮肤科医生,使用皮肤结节病活动和形态指数(CSAMI)、结节病活动和严重程度指数(SASI)以及医生整体评估(PGA)对13例患者的皮肤结节病病变照片进行评分。对每种工具的评分者间信度进行了评估,并与先前一项涉及结节病专家在面对面环境中评估同一患者群体的研究结果进行了比较。CSAMI活动量表(0.36 [0.16 - 0.65])和CSAMI损伤量表(0.17 [0.04 - 0.43])的评分者间信度较差,改良面部SASI(0.59 [0.36 - 0.82])和PGA(0.47 [0.23 - 0.74])的评分者间信度为中等。所有结果均低于先前验证这些工具可用于面对面使用的研究结果。鉴于这些工具在面对面使用时的优越性,建议尽可能让现场结节病专家评估皮肤结节病病变。