Dermatology. 1993;186(1):23-31. doi: 10.1159/000247298.
Assessment methods for atopic dermatitis (AD) are not standardized, and therapeutic studies are difficult to interpret.
To obtain a consensus on assessment methods in AD and to use a statistical method to develop a composite severity index.
Consensus definitions were given for items used in the scoring system (extent, intensity, subjective) and illustrated for intensity items. Slides were reviewed to address within- and between-observer variability by a group of 10 trained clinicians, and data were statistically evaluated with a two-way analysis of variance. Two variants of an assessment system were compared in 88 patients at 5 different institutions. Data were analyzed using principal-component analysis.
For 5 intensity items studied (erythema, edema/papulation, oozing/crusts, excoriations, lichenification), within- and between-observer variability was good overall, except for edema/papulation which was difficult to assess with slides. In the series of 88 patients, principal-component analysis allowed to extract two unrelated components: the first one accounting for 33% of total variance was interpreted as a 'severity' component; the second one, accounting for 18% of variance, was interpreted as a 'profile' component distinguishing patients with mostly erythema and subjective symptoms and those with mostly lichenification and dryness and lower subjective symptoms. Of the two evaluation systems used, the one using the rule of nine to assess extent was found more workable than the one using a distribution x intensity product. A scoring index (SCORAD) combining extent, severity and subjective symptoms was mathematically derived from the first system and showed a normal distribution of the population studied.
The final choice for the evaluation system was mostly made based on simplicity and easy routine use in outpatient clinics. Based on mathematical appreciation of weights of the items used in the assessment of AD, extent and subjective symptoms account for around 20% each of the total score, intensity items representing 60%. The so-designed composite index SCORAD needs to be further tested in clinical trials.
特应性皮炎(AD)的评估方法尚未标准化,治疗研究难以解读。
就AD的评估方法达成共识,并使用统计方法制定一个综合严重程度指数。
对评分系统中使用的项目(范围、严重程度、主观症状)给出了共识定义,并对严重程度项目进行了说明。一组10名经过培训的临床医生对幻灯片进行了审查,以解决观察者内部和观察者之间的变异性问题,并使用双向方差分析对数据进行统计评估。在5个不同机构的88名患者中比较了评估系统的两种变体。使用主成分分析对数据进行分析。
对于所研究的5个严重程度项目(红斑、水肿/丘疹、渗出/结痂、抓痕、苔藓化),观察者内部和观察者之间的变异性总体良好,但水肿/丘疹难以通过幻灯片进行评估。在88例患者系列中,主成分分析允许提取两个不相关的成分:第一个成分占总方差的33%,被解释为“严重程度”成分;第二个成分占方差的18%,被解释为“特征”成分,区分主要有红斑和主观症状的患者与主要有苔藓化和干燥且主观症状较轻的患者。在所使用的两种评估系统中,发现使用九分法评估范围的系统比使用分布×严重程度乘积的系统更可行。从第一个系统中数学推导得出了一个结合范围、严重程度和主观症状的评分指数(SCORAD),在所研究的人群中呈正态分布。
评估系统的最终选择主要基于门诊诊所使用的简便性和常规易用性。基于对AD评估中使用的项目权重的数学评估,范围和主观症状各占总分的约20%,严重程度项目占60%。如此设计的综合指数SCORAD需要在临床试验中进一步测试。