Journal of cosmetic dermatology · 2022
The therapeutic effects in patients with rosacea: how do we evaluate them?
СтатьяОбзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhao Shasha, Wang Meng, Zhou Yuan, Yan Yan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Rosacea is a common, chronic skin disorder with negative impacts on physical health and social function. The response to therapy plays a critical factor in determining the duration of treatment and developing new medicines. However, it is challenging to assess the efficacy due to its complicated clinical characteristics and nonspecific histopathological findings.
AIMS: This study aims to review the efficacy evaluation tools for rosacea.
METHODS: An extensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and other databases for articles on efficacy evaluation methods for rosacea from 1995 to 2021.
RESULTS: In clinical practice and scientific research, various methods are available for assessing the curative effect. Evaluation tools based on phenotypes are the most commonly used because they are cheap and straightforward. Various questionnaires also exist to evaluate health-related quality of life. However, the inevitable subjectivity makes it challenging to compare the curative effect among different studies. By contrast, objective assessment tools are more precise and repeatable, such as consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies, computer-aided image analysis, and biophysical parameter assessments.
CONCLUSION: No single assessment method could balance convenience and accuracy. For improving outcomes and facilitating academic exchanges, a well-validated gold standard evaluation tool is still needed. This review provides an overview of the existing efficacy evaluation methods for rosacea and discusses the relevant details.
AIMS: This study aims to review the efficacy evaluation tools for rosacea.
METHODS: An extensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Web of Science, and other databases for articles on efficacy evaluation methods for rosacea from 1995 to 2021.
RESULTS: In clinical practice and scientific research, various methods are available for assessing the curative effect. Evaluation tools based on phenotypes are the most commonly used because they are cheap and straightforward. Various questionnaires also exist to evaluate health-related quality of life. However, the inevitable subjectivity makes it challenging to compare the curative effect among different studies. By contrast, objective assessment tools are more precise and repeatable, such as consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies, computer-aided image analysis, and biophysical parameter assessments.
CONCLUSION: No single assessment method could balance convenience and accuracy. For improving outcomes and facilitating academic exchanges, a well-validated gold standard evaluation tool is still needed. This review provides an overview of the existing efficacy evaluation methods for rosacea and discusses the relevant details.