Management of Mild‐to‐Moderate Atopic Dermatitis With Topical Treatments by Dermatologists: A Questionnaire‐Based Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic, immune‐mediated, inflammatory skin disorder affecting a heterogeneous population. Most patients with mild‐to‐moderate AD are treated with topical medication. Objectives To gain an understanding of the management of mild‐to‐moderate AD with topical treatments by examining the practices of dermatologists worldwide using a questionnaire. Methods Participants from North America, the Middle East, Asia, South America and the United Kingdom completed an electronic questionnaire composed of 43 questions assessing their clinical practice with topical treatment for patients with mild‐to‐moderate AD among different age groups ( < 2, 2−12 and > 12 years) and disease severity (mild or moderate AD). Results Seventeen dermatologists completed the questionnaire. For patients of all ages with mild‐to‐moderate AD, nearly all participants indicated that topical corticosteroids (TCSs) are the first‐line topical treatment for a duration of ≤ 4 weeks before reassessment. Less‐potent TCSs were preferred for younger patients and for sensitive regions of the body. Time until treatment re‐evaluation was guided by disease severity: the greater the disease severity, the shorter the time until re‐evaluation (1 week to 4 months). In all age groups, after initial treatment, most participants would continue the regimen previously prescribed, switch to a non‐TCS agent (e.g., a topical calcineurin inhibitor, crisaborole or topical JAK inhibitor), or reduce the dose. All participants would utilize TCSs with or without non‐TCS agents for treating flares depending on patient age and affected region(s) of the skin. Infection, drug‐related adverse effects, worsening AD, corticophobia and limited access to topical pharmacologic treatment were the main reasons for deviation from the standard regimen. Conclusions Management of mild‐to‐moderate AD in practice is influenced by several patient‐specific factors, access to specialist care and therapies, safety concerns and limitations associated with treatment options.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".