Evaluation of Treatments for Pruritus in Epidermolysis Bullosa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pruritus is a common complication in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB). There is limited published data about the treatments that individuals with EB use for pruritus. The objective of the current study was to determine quantitatively which treatments individuals with EB have used for pruritus and to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of these treatments in pruritus relief. A questionnaire was developed to evaluate the treatments and therapies used for pruritus in patients of all ages and for all types of EB. Questions about bathing products, moisturizers, topical products, oral medications, dressings, and alternative therapies were included. A 5-point Likert scale (-2 = relieves itch a lot, -1 = relieves itch a little, 0 = no change, 1 = increases itch a little, 2 = increases itch a lot) was used to evaluate perceived effectiveness. Patients from seven North American EB centers were invited to participate. Greasy ointments (53.4%), lotions (45.2%), creams (40.4%), and oral hydroxyzine (39.0%) were the most frequently used treatments for pruritus. Treatments that were used frequently and perceived to be the most effective included creams (mean = -1.1), topical prescription corticosteroids (mean = -1.0), oils (mean = -0.9), oral hydroxyzine (mean = -0.9), topical diphenhydramine (mean = -0.9), and vaporizing rub (menthol, camphor, eucalyptus) (mean = -0.9). Systemic opioids (mean = 0.3), adherent bandages (mean = 0.3), and bleach baths (mean = 0.2) slightly increased pruritus. Randomized controlled trials of therapies will be necessary to develop evidence-based recommendations for control of pruritus in individuals with EB.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".