IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0235657.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • M Ingmar van Raath
  • Sandeep Chohan
  • Albert Wolkerstorfer
  • Chantal M A M van der Horst
  • Jacqueline Limpens
  • Xuan Huang
  • Baoyue Ding
  • Gert Storm
  • René R W J van der Hulst
  • Michal Heger

Abstract

Background: Valid and reliable outcome measures are needed to determine and compare treatment results of port wine stain (PWS) studies. Besides, uniformity in outcome measures is crucial to enable inter-study comparisons and meta-analyses. This study aimed to assess the heterogeneity in reported PWS outcome measures by mapping the (clinical) outcome measures currently used in prospective PWS studies. Methods: OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for prospective PWS studies published from 2005 to May 2020. Interventional studies with a clinical efficacy assessment were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist. Results: In total, 85 studies comprising 3,310 patients were included in which 94 clinician/observer-reported clinical efficacy assessments had been performed using 46 different scoring systems. Eighty-one- studies employed a global assessment of PWS appearance/improvement, of which -82% was expressed as percentage improvement and categorized in 26 different scoring systems. A wide variety of other global and multi-item scoring systems was identified. As a result of outcome heterogeneity and insufficient data reporting, only 44% of studies could be directly compared. A minority of studies included patient-reported or objective outcomes. Thirteen studies of good quality were found. Conclusion: Clinical PWS outcomes are highly heterogeneous, which hampers study comparisons and meta-analyses. Consensus-based development of a core outcome-set would benefit future research and clinical practice, especially considering the lack of high-quality trials.

Suggested Citation

  • M Ingmar van Raath & Sandeep Chohan & Albert Wolkerstorfer & Chantal M A M van der Horst & Jacqueline Limpens & Xuan Huang & Baoyue Ding & Gert Storm & René R W J van der Hulst & Michal Heger, 2020. "Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-24, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235657
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0235657
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235657
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235657&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0235657. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.