Systematic review of the use of the Dermatology Life Quality Index in routine clinical practice: evidence from 287 articles across 56 countries
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Although quality of life instruments are widely used in research, it is challenging to find evidence of their use in routine clinical use. The most widely used measure for skin disease burden is the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), and its scores have validated clinical meaning. OBJECTIVES: To identify evidence of the use of the DLQI in routine clinical practice and explore the nature of its use. METHODS: The study followed PRISMA guidelines, and the protocol was registered with PROSPERO. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases were systematically searched for articles describing studies using the DLQI in routine clinical practice. Studies were excluded if participants were aged < 16 years and if there were predetermined treatment interventions, as in a clinical trial. Information was extracted on publications' authors' opinions on the use of the DLQI in their routine practice. RESULTS: In total, 2178 publications were screened and 287 articles met the inclusion criteria, reporting on 112 diseases and describing 66 434 patients from 56 countries, using the DLQI in at least 29 languages. Of the studies, 121 (42.2%) were reported as retrospective and 63 (22.0%) as observational. Fifty-two (18.1%) stated DLQI data were retrieved from patient records, 29 (10.1%) as 'real life', 39 (13.6%) reported 'real-world data' and 47 (16.4%) used consecutive patient recruitment. In total, 264 (92.0%) studies were conducted in a single country; 96 (33.4%) were multicentred studies, whereas 171 (59.6%) were conducted at a single site. There were 93 (32.4%) that were conducted in hospitals, 66 (23.0%) specified outpatient clinics, 38 (13.2%) tertiary care, 33 (11.5%) clinics, 4 (1.4%) in the community, 18 (6.3%) in other settings and 35 (12.2%) were unspecified. The most common diseases in the study settings were psoriasis (106 studies, 36.9%), atopic dermatitis (32, 11.1%), urticaria (24, 8.4%), hidradenitis suppurativa (22, 7.7%) and vitiligo (17, 5.9%). Thirty studies (10.5%) used Hongbo et al.'s (J Invest Dermatol 2005; 125:659-64) DLQI score banding. CONCLUSIONS: The DLQI was widely used in routine care locations internationally, informing clinical decisions and monitoring of treatment. The DLQI was embedded into some clinics' continuing routine practice.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».