Dermatology (Basel, Switzerland) · 2001
Atopic signs and symptoms: assessing the 'atopy score' concept.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Uter W, Schwanitz H J, Pfahlberg A, Gefeller O
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Score concepts have been suggested for the standardised diagnosis of atopic dermatitis, incorporating various anamnestic and clinical minor criteria of atopy, including the 'Erlangen Score', developed in the hospital-based setting of a dermatitis clinic.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the properties of this score in the context of a population-based epidemiological study.
METHODS: The association between relevant atopic criteria and previous or current flexural eczema was evaluated in 2,352 hairdressing apprentices.
RESULTS: The association was not as strong as in the patient-based studies, comparing the respective odds ratios. Accordingly, the discriminating power of the Erlangen Score was poor, resulting in low sensitivity (55.7%) and specificity (73.8%) for, e.g., 8 points as cutpoint.
CONCLUSION: While the score appears useful to summarise minor criteria, the individual relevance of its point values should not be overestimated in view of a low positive predictive value in a population (compared to a clinical) setting.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the properties of this score in the context of a population-based epidemiological study.
METHODS: The association between relevant atopic criteria and previous or current flexural eczema was evaluated in 2,352 hairdressing apprentices.
RESULTS: The association was not as strong as in the patient-based studies, comparing the respective odds ratios. Accordingly, the discriminating power of the Erlangen Score was poor, resulting in low sensitivity (55.7%) and specificity (73.8%) for, e.g., 8 points as cutpoint.
CONCLUSION: While the score appears useful to summarise minor criteria, the individual relevance of its point values should not be overestimated in view of a low positive predictive value in a population (compared to a clinical) setting.