Measurement properties of adult quality‐of‐life measurement instruments for eczema: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has identified quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain to be evaluated in every eczema trial. It is unclear which of the existing QoL instruments is most appropriate for this domain. Thus, the aim of this review was to systematically assess the measurement properties of existing measurement instruments developed and/or validated for the measurement of QoL in adult eczema. METHODS: We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase identifying studies on measurement properties of adult eczema QoL instruments. For all eligible studies, we assessed the adequacy of the measurement properties and the methodological quality with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. A best evidence synthesis summarizing findings from different studies was the basis to assign four degrees of recommendation (A-D). RESULTS: A total of 15 articles reporting on 17 instruments were included. No instrument fulfilled the criteria for category A. Six instruments were placed in category B, meaning that they have the potential to be recommended depending on the results of further validation studies. Three instruments had poor adequacy in at least one required adequacy criterion and were therefore put in category C. The remaining eight instruments were minimally validated and were thus placed in category D. CONCLUSIONS: Currently, no QoL instrument can be recommended for use in adult eczema. The Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis (QoLIAD) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) are recommended for further validation research.
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 | 0.051 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".