Patient-Reported Outcomes of Medical Tattooing for Capillary Malformations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with capillary malformations (CMs) may undergo medical tattooing (MT) as an alternative to laser therapy. But little is known about treatment results and impact from the patients' perspective. OBJECTIVES: In this cross-sectional digital survey study, we evaluated the patient-reported outcomes of MT for CMs. METHODS: MT practices were identified via the Dutch Association of Skin Therapists and Google. These practices invited all their CM patients who had undergone MT between January 2011 and September 2021 to participate. Baseline and treatment characteristics, tattooing effectiveness, patient satisfaction with treatment outcomes, and complications were evaluated using a custom-made online survey. Quality of life was assessed with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) questionnaire. Factors associated with treatment effectiveness and patient satisfaction were identified via bivariate analysis and ordinal logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Most of the 89 respondents were female (69%). Almost all CMs were located on the face (90%) and mainly (dark) red (74%). Nearly all patients had undergone laser therapy (91%). Median number of tattooing sessions was 5 (IQR: 4.0-8.0). Thirty-seven percent of the patients perceived >75% color reduction. Younger patients were more likely to obtain lower treatment effectiveness (OR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.20-0.97). Most patients (83%) were satisfied with treatment results. Patients with lighter (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.13-0.72), non-facial (OR 0.15, 95% CI: 0.03-0.89), and hypertrophic CMs (OR 0.30, 95% CI: 0.11-0.82) were less likely to be satisfied with treatment outcomes. Patients with lighter skin types were more satisfied (OR 2.89, 95% CI: 1.23-6.80). Complications included transient pain (23%), bleeding (3.4%), hypertrophic scarring (1.1%), hypopigmentation (1.1%), and a halo around the tattoo (1.1%). CONCLUSION: MT seems a valid alternative treatment in addition to laser therapy for CMs, with mild complications. Most patients are (very) satisfied with treatment results, while color reduction is incomplete. Hence, it seems appropriate to decide together with patients whether or not to use MT as primary treatment or secondary to laser therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".