-
Epidemiologic Reviews Jan 2017Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to monitor treatment-related symptoms and physical function decrements in cancer clinical trials. As more patients... (Review)
Review
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to monitor treatment-related symptoms and physical function decrements in cancer clinical trials. As more patients enter survivorship, it is important to capture PRO physical function throughout trials to help restore pretreatment levels of function. We completed a systematic review of PRO physical function measures used in cancer clinical trials and evaluated their psychometric properties on the basis of guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration. Five databases were searched through October 2015: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane. From an initial total of 10,233 articles, we identified 108 trials that captured PRO physical function. Within these trials, approximately 67% used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and 25% used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36. Both the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 instruments generically satisfy most Food and Drug Administration requirements, although neither sought direct patient input as part of item development. The newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short form may be a brief, viable alternative. Clinicians should carefully consider the psychometric properties of these measures when incorporating PRO instrumentation into clinical trial design to provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient function.
Topics: Activities of Daily Living; Clinical Trials as Topic; Health Status; Humans; Neoplasms; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Quality of Life; Symptom Assessment
PubMed: 28453627
DOI: 10.1093/epirev/mxx008 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2020Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cause of death, accounting for 50,000 to 200,000 deaths annually. It is the third most common cause of mortality among the... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common cause of death, accounting for 50,000 to 200,000 deaths annually. It is the third most common cause of mortality among the cardiovascular diseases, after coronary artery disease and stroke. The advent of multi-detector computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA) has allowed better assessment of PE regarding visualisation of the peripheral pulmonary arteries, increasing its rate of diagnosis. More cases of peripheral PEs, such as isolated subsegmental PE (SSPE) and incidental PE, have thereby been identified. These two conditions are usually found in patients with few or none of the classic PE symptoms such as haemoptysis or pleuritic pain, acute dyspnoea or circulatory collapse. However, in patients with reduced cardiopulmonary reserve, classic PE symptoms can be found with isolated SSPEs. Incidental SSPE is found casually in asymptomatic patients, usually by diagnostic imaging performed for other reasons (for example routine CT for cancer staging in oncology patients). Traditionally, all PEs are anticoagulated in a similar manner independent of their location, or number and size of the thrombi. It has been suggested that many patients with SSPE may be treated without benefit, increasing adverse events by a possible unnecessary use of anticoagulants. Patients with isolated SSPE, or incidental PE, may have a more benign clinical presentation compared to those with proximal PEs. However, the clinical significance in patients, and their prognosis, needs to be studied to evaluate whether anticoagulation therapy is required. This is the second update of the Cochrane systematic review published in 2014.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus control in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and AMED databases and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov trials registers to 26 November 2019. We also undertook reference checking to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials of anticoagulation therapy versus control in patients with SSPE or incidental SSPE.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors inspected all citations identified to ensure reliable assessment. If relevant studies were identified, we planned for two review authors to independently extract data and to assess the methodological quality of identified trials using the criteria recommended in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
We did not identify any studies that met the inclusion criteria.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is no evidence from randomised controlled trials to assess the effectiveness and safety of anticoagulation therapy versus control in patients with isolated subsegmental pulmonary embolism (SSPE) or incidental SSPE. Well-conducted research is required before informed practice decisions can be made.
Topics: Acute Disease; Anticoagulants; Dyspnea; Humans; Prognosis; Pulmonary Embolism; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Watchful Waiting
PubMed: 32030721
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010222.pub4 -
BMC Medicine Sep 2016To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the risk of serious infections with immunosuppressive medications and glucocorticoids in lupus... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
To perform a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the risk of serious infections with immunosuppressive medications and glucocorticoids in lupus nephritis.
METHODS
A trained librarian performed two searches: (1) PubMed for all lupus nephritis trials from the end dates for the systematic review for the 2012 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) lupus nephritis treatment guidelines and the 2012 Cochrane Systematic Review on treatments for lupus nephritis, to September 2013; and (2) PubMed and SCOPUS for all lupus trials (excluding lupus nephritis) from inception to February 2014, to obtain additional trials for harms data in any lupus patient. The search was updated to May 2016. Duplicate title/abstract review and duplicate data abstractions by two abstractors independently was performed for all eligible studies, including those studies abstracted for the 2012 ACR lupus nephritis treatment guidelines and the 2012 Cochrane Systematic Review on lupus nephritis treatments. We performed a systematic review and a Bayesian NMA, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of immunosuppressive drugs or glucocorticoids in patients with lupus nephritis assessing serious infection risk. Markov chain Monte Carlo methods were used to model 95 % credible intervals (CrI). Sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of estimates.
RESULTS
A total of 32 RCTs with 2611 patients provided data. There were 26 two-arm, five three-arm, and one four-arm trials. We found that tacrolimus was associated with significantly lower risk of serious infections compared to glucocorticoids, cyclophosphamide (CYC), mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and azathioprine (AZA) with odds ratios (95 % CrI) of 0.33 (0.12-0.88), 0.37 (0.15-0.87), 0.340 (0.18-0.81), and 0.32 (0.12-0.81), respectively. Conversely, CYC low dose (LD), CYC high dose (HD), and HD glucocorticoids were associated with higher odds of serious infections compared to tacrolimus, ranging from 4.84 to 12.83. We also found that MMF followed by AZA (MMF-AZA) was associated with significantly lower risk of serious infections as compared to CYC LD, CYC HD, CYC-AZA, or HD glucocorticoids with odds ratios (95 % CrI) of 0.09 (0.01-0.76), 0.07 (0.01-0.54), 0.14 (0.02-0.71), and 0.03 (0.00-0.56), respectively. Estimates were similar to pair-wise meta-analyses. Sensitivity analyses that varied estimate (odds ratio vs. Peto's odds ratio), method (random vs. fixed effects model), data (sepsis vs. serious infection data; exclusion of observational studies), treatment grouping (CYC and CYC HD as a combined treatment group vs. separate), made little/no difference to these estimates.
CONCLUSIONS
Tacrolimus and MMF-AZA combination were associated with lower risk of serious infections compared to other immunosuppressive drugs or glucocorticoids for lupus nephritis. In conjunction with comparative efficacy data, these data can help patients make informed decisions about treatment options for lupus nephritis.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42016032965.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Communicable Diseases; Drug Therapy, Combination; Glucocorticoids; Humans; Immunosuppressive Agents; Lupus Nephritis; Risk Factors; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 27623861
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0673-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2018In many countries emergency departments (EDs) are facing an increase in demand for services, long waits, and severe crowding. One response to mitigate overcrowding has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
In many countries emergency departments (EDs) are facing an increase in demand for services, long waits, and severe crowding. One response to mitigate overcrowding has been to provide primary care services alongside or within hospital EDs for patients with non-urgent problems. However, it is unknown how this impacts the quality of patient care and the utilisation of hospital resources, or if it is cost-effective. This is the first update of the original Cochrane Review published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of locating primary care professionals in hospital EDs to provide care for patients with non-urgent health problems, compared with care provided by regularly scheduled emergency physicians (EPs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (the Cochrane Library; 2017, Issue 4), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and King's Fund, from inception until 10 May 2017. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP for registered clinical trials, and screened reference lists of included papers and relevant systematic reviews.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, and interrupted time series studies that evaluated the effectiveness of introducing primary care professionals to hospital EDs attending to patients with non-urgent conditions, as compared to the care provided by regularly scheduled EPs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified four trials (one randomised trial and three non-randomised trials), one of which is newly identified in this update, involving a total of 11,463 patients, 16 general practitioners (GPs), 9 emergency nurse practitioners (NPs), and 69 EPs. These studies evaluated the effects of introducing GPs or emergency NPs to provide care to patients with non-urgent problems in the ED, as compared to EPs for outcomes such as resource use. The studies were conducted in Ireland, the UK, and Australia, and had an overall high or unclear risk of bias. The outcomes investigated were similar across studies, and there was considerable variation in the triage system used, the level of expertise and experience of the medical practitioners, and type of hospital (urban teaching, suburban community hospital). Main sources of funding were national or regional health authorities and a medical research funding body.There was high heterogeneity across studies, which precluded pooling data. It is uncertain whether the intervention reduces time from arrival to clinical assessment and treatment or total length of ED stay (1 study; 260 participants), admissions to hospital, diagnostic tests, treatments given, or consultations or referrals to hospital-based specialist (3 studies; 11,203 participants), as well as costs (2 studies; 9325 participants), as we assessed the evidence as being of very low-certainty for all outcomes.No data were reported on adverse events (such as ED returns and mortality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We assessed the evidence from the four included studies as of very low-certainty overall, as the results are inconsistent and safety has not been examined. The evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions for practice or policy regarding the effectiveness and safety of care provided to non-urgent patients by GPs and NPs versus EPs in the ED to mitigate problems of overcrowding, wait times, and patient flow.
Topics: Crowding; Emergencies; Emergency Medicine; Emergency Nursing; Emergency Service, Hospital; General Practice; Hematologic Tests; Hospitalization; Humans; Non-Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Nurse Practitioners; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Primary Health Care; Radiography; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Referral and Consultation; Triage
PubMed: 29438575
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002097.pub4 -
Trials Oct 2018A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial is the estimation of the number of participants needed. The most common approach is to specify a target...
BACKGROUND
A key step in the design of a randomised controlled trial is the estimation of the number of participants needed. The most common approach is to specify a target difference in the primary outcome between the randomised groups and then estimate the corresponding sample size. The sample size is chosen to provide reassurance that the trial will have high statistical power to detect the target difference at the planned statistical significance level. Alternative approaches are also available, though most still require specification of a target difference. The sample size has many implications for the conduct of the study, as well as incurring scientific and ethical aspects. Despite the critical role of the target difference for the primary outcome in the design of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), the manner in which it is determined has received little attention. This article reports the development of the DELTA guidance on the specification and reporting of the target difference for the primary outcome in a sample size calculation for a RCT.
METHODS
The DELTA (Difference ELicitation in TriAls) project has five components comprising systematic literature reviews of recent methodological developments (stage 1) and existing funder guidance (stage 2), a Delphi study (stage 3), a 2-day consensus meeting bringing together researchers, funders and patient representatives (stage 4), and the preparation and dissemination of a guidance document (stage 5).
RESULTS
The project started in April 2016. The literature search identified 28 articles of methodological developments relevant to a method for specifying a target difference. A Delphi study involving 69 participants, along with a 2-day consensus meeting were conducted. In addition, further engagement sessions were held at two international conferences. The main guidance text was finalised on April 18, 2018, after revision informed by feedback gathered from stages 2 and 3 and from funder representatives.
DISCUSSION
The DELTA Delphi study identified a number of areas (such as practical recommendations and examples, greater coverage of different trial designs and statistical approaches) of particular interest amongst stakeholders which new guidance was desired to meet. New relevant references were identified by the review. Such findings influenced the scope, drafting and revision of the guidance. While not all suggestions could be accommodated, it is hoped that the process has led to a more useful and practical document.
Topics: Clinical Trial Protocols as Topic; Consensus; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Delphi Technique; Humans; Numbers Needed To Treat; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30305155
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2887-x -
Trials Aug 2015Manuscript abstracts represent a critical source of information for oncology practitioners. Practitioners may utilize the information contained in abstracts as a basis... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Manuscript abstracts represent a critical source of information for oncology practitioners. Practitioners may utilize the information contained in abstracts as a basis for treatment decisions particularly when full-text articles are not accessible. In 2007, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) extension statement for abstracts provided a minimum list of elements that should be included in abstracts. In this study we evaluate the degree of adherence to these recommendations and accessibility of full text publications in oncology publications.
METHODS
A systematic review of abstracts of randomized, controlled, phase III trials in metastatic solid malignancies published between January 2009 and December 2011 in PubMed, Medline, and Embase was completed. Abstracts were assigned a completeness score of 0-18 based on the number of CONSORT-recommended elements. Accessibility through open access was recorded.
RESULTS
174 abstracts with data for 95,956 patients were reviewed. The median completeness score was 9 (range, 3-17). Open access to full text articles was available for 80 % of abstracts. The remaining 20 % (35 out of 174) had a median cost of 38 USD (range: $22-49.95). The least frequently reported elements were: trial design description (20 %), participant allocation method (13 %), blinding (24 %), trial enrollment status (22 %), registration and name of trial (26 %) and funding source (18 %). The most frequently reported elements were eligibility criteria (98 %), study interventions (100 %), and primary endpoint (87 %).
CONCLUSION
There is poor adherence to the CONSORT recommendations for abstract reporting in publications of randomized cancer clinical trials which could negatively impact clinical decision-making. Full-text articles are frequently available through open access.
Topics: Access to Information; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic; Evidence-Based Medicine; Guideline Adherence; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasms; Quality Control; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 26253548
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-015-0885-9 -
Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and... Dec 2016The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the safety and effectiveness of unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the safety and effectiveness of unilateral percutaneous vertebroplasty (PVP) for treatment of osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures (OVCFs) compared with that of bilateral treatment.
METHODS
The multiple databases including PubMed, Springer, EMBASE, OVID, and China Journal Full-text Database were adopted to search for relevant studies in English or Chinese, and full-text articles involving comparison of unilateral and bilateral PVP surgery were reviewed. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted to estimate the effects of the results among selected articles. Forest plots, sensitivity analysis, and bias analysis for the articles included were also conducted.
RESULTS
Finally, 1043 patients were included in the 14 studies, which eventually satisfied the eligibility criteria, and unilateral and bilateral surgeries were 550 and 493, respectively. The meta-analysis suggested that there was no significant difference of VAS score, ODI score, and cement leakage rate (MD = 0.12, 95%CI [-0.03, 0.26], P = 0.11; MD = -1.28, 95%CI [-3.59, 1.04], P = 0.28; RR = 0.89, 95%CI [0.61, 1.29], P = 0.52). The surgery time of unilateral PVP is much less than that of bilateral PVP (MD = -16.67, 95%CI [-19.22, -14.12], P < 0.00001). Patients with bilateral PVP surgery have been injected more cement than patients with unilateral PVP surgery (MD = -1.55, 95%CI [-1.94, -1.16], P < 0.00001).
CONCLUSIONS
Both punctures provide excellent pain relief and improvement of life quality. We still encourage the use of the unipedicular approach as the preferred surgical technique for treatment of OVCFs due to less operation time, limited X-ray exposure, and minimal cement introduction and extravasation.
Topics: Clinical Trials as Topic; Fractures, Compression; Humans; Osteoporotic Fractures; Spinal Fractures; Vertebroplasty
PubMed: 27908277
DOI: 10.1186/s13018-016-0479-6 -
The Journal of Pathology. Clinical... May 2021The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013 Statement was developed to provide guidance for inclusion of key methodological components in clinical trial protocols. However, these standards do not include guidance specific to pathology input in clinical trials. This systematic review aims to synthesise existing recommendations specific to pathology practice in clinical trials for implementation in trial protocol design. Articles were identified from database searches and deemed eligible for inclusion if they contained: (1) guidance and/or a checklist, which was (2) pathology-related, with (3) content relevant to clinical trial protocols or could influence a clinical trial protocol design from a pathology perspective and (4) were published in 1996 or later. The quality of individual papers was assessed using the AGREE-GRS (Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch & Evaluation - Global Rating Scale) tool, and the confidence in cumulative evidence was evaluated using the GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. Extracted recommendations were synthesised using the best fit framework method, which includes thematic analysis followed by a meta-aggregative approach to synthesis within the framework. Of the 10 184 records screened and 199 full-text articles reviewed, only 40 guidance resources met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. Recommendations extracted from 22 guidance documents were generalisable enough for data synthesis. Seven recommendation statements were synthesised as follows: (1) multidisciplinary collaboration in trial design with early involvement of pathologists, particularly with respect to the use of biospecimens and associated biomarker/analytical assays and in the evaluation of pathology-related parameters; (2) funding and training for personnel undertaking trial work; (3) selection of an accredited laboratory with suitable facilities to undertake scheduled work; (4) quality assurance of pathology-related parameters; (5) transparent reporting of pathology-related parameters; (6) policies regarding informatics and tracking biospecimens across trial sites; and (7) informed consent for specimen collection and retention for future research.
Topics: Biomarkers; Biopsy; Clinical Trials as Topic; Humans; Pathology, Clinical; Pathology, Molecular; Practice Guidelines as Topic; Predictive Value of Tests; Research Design; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33635586
DOI: 10.1002/cjp2.199 -
Systematic Reviews May 2021Patch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. A... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure in patients with symptomatic and significant stenosis: a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials.
BACKGROUND
Patch angioplasty in conventional carotid endarterectomy is suggested to reduce the risk of restenosis and recurrent ipsilateral stroke compared with primary closure. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials is needed to compare outcomes (benefits and harms) of both techniques.
METHODS
Searches (CENTRAL, PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other databases) were last updated 3rd of January 2021. We included randomized clinical trials comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall in patients with a symptomatic and significant (> 50%) carotid stenosis. Primary outcomes are defined as all-cause mortality and serious adverse events.
RESULTS
We included 12 randomized clinical trials including 2187 participants who underwent 2335 operations for carotid stenosis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch closure (1280 operations) versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure (1055 operations). Meta-analysis comparing carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus carotid endarterectomy with primary closure may potentially decrease the number of patients with all-cause mortality (RR 0.53; 95% CI 0.26 to 1.08; p = 0.08, best-case scenario for patch), serious adverse events (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.56 to 0.96; p = 0.02, best-case scenario for patch), and the number of restenosis (RR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.71; p < 0.01). Trial sequential analysis demonstrated that the required information sizes were far from being reached for these patient-important outcomes. All the patient-relevant outcomes were at low certainty of evidence according to The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review showed no conclusive evidence of a difference between carotid endarterectomy with patch angioplasty versus primary closure of the arterial wall on all-cause mortality, < 30 days mortality, < 30 days stroke, or any other serious adverse events. These conclusions are based on data from 15 to 35 years ago, obtained in trials with very low certainty according to GRADE, and should be interpreted cautiously. Therefore, we suggest conducting new randomized clinical trials patch angioplasty versus primary closure in carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with an internal carotid artery stenosis of 50% or more. Such trials ought to be designed according to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement (Chan et al., Ann Intern Med 1:200-7, 2013) and reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement (Schulz et al., 7, 2010). Until conclusive evidence is obtained, the standard of care according to guidelines should not be abandoned.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42014013416 . Review protocol publication 2019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026419 .
Topics: Angioplasty; Carotid Stenosis; Constriction, Pathologic; Endarterectomy, Carotid; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stroke; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33957978
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01692-8 -
Actas Dermo-sifiliograficas Jun 2015Phototherapy is a treatment option for atopic dermatitis recommended by several guidelines. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Phototherapy is a treatment option for atopic dermatitis recommended by several guidelines.
OBJECTIVE
To perform a systematic review of the efficacy of different modalities of phototherapy and photochemotherapy in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
We considered all randomized clinical trials (RCTs) performed in patients with atopic dermatitis, and accepted all outcome measures. Articles were identified via an online search of the MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We also searched for clinical trials registered in Current Controlled Trials and in the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform.
RESULTS
Twenty-one RCTs (961 patients) were included in the qualitative analysis. Two of the trials included children and adolescents (32 patients). The efficacy of narrow-band UV-B and UV-A1 phototherapy was similar for the different outcome measures contemplated. Two RCTs assessed the efficacy of psoralen plus UV-A therapy (PUVA). No serious adverse events were described. In general, the publications reviewed were characterized by a high risk of bias and poor reporting of methodology and results.
CONCLUSIONS
There is evidence for the use of narrow-band UV-B and UV-A1 phototherapy in moderate to severe atopic dermatitis. Evidence supporting the use of PUVA in atopic dermatitis is scarce and there is little information on the use of phototherapy in childhood. For the purpose of future studies, it would be advisable to use comparable criteria and scales for the evaluation of disease severity and patients, to standardize radiation methods, and to establish a minimum follow-up time.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Dermatitis, Atopic; Humans; PUVA Therapy; Phototherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome; Ultraviolet Therapy
PubMed: 25728564
DOI: 10.1016/j.ad.2014.12.017