Capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema: lessons for data collection in eczema trials.

IF 3.7 4区 医学 Q1 DERMATOLOGY Clinical and Experimental Dermatology Pub Date : 2024-08-17 DOI:10.1093/ced/llae328
Katherine E Memory, Stephanie J MacNeill, Kim S Thomas, Miriam Santer, Matthew J Ridd
{"title":"Capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema: lessons for data collection in eczema trials.","authors":"Katherine E Memory, Stephanie J MacNeill, Kim S Thomas, Miriam Santer, Matthew J Ridd","doi":"10.1093/ced/llae328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCS) prevent and treat flares in eczema. However, topical treatment use is poorly recorded and reported in clinical trials. There is no clear consensus of how best to capture and summarise topical treatment use.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To explore different ways of capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Secondary data analysis using 450 participants from the Best Emollients for Eczema (BEE) trial. Participants were allocated to use one type of emollient (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment) 'twice daily and when required' for 16 weeks. Otherwise, clinical management remained unchanged. Parents completed weekly questions about topical therapy use and eczema symptoms. Two versions of topical treatment use questionnaires were used. The first (n=202, 44.9%) asked parents to report treatment use on days 1-7, starting completion on the day they were randomised. The second (n=248, 55.1%) reported use by day of the week (Monday to Sunday), starting completion the first Monday after randomisation. Both underwent Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) review, but the second version was tested more thoroughly using cognitive interviewing techniques, following parent feedback that questions on the first version were confusing. Descriptive statistics compared questionnaire completion and differences in emollient and TCS use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, questionnaire completion for both emollient and TCS use decreased with time: but at weeks 1 and 16 were 84.7% (381/450) and 58.9% (265/450) for emollient use, and 94.2% (424/450) and 80.4% (362/450) for TCS use, respectively. Fewer emollient use questionnaires were completed with first (33.5%) than the second (87.9%) version (p<0.001). TCS use questionnaire completion were similar for both (84.9% and 87.4%, p=0.002). We present different ways of summarising topical treatment use.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>While questionnaire completion was similar for TCS use, emollient use data completeness was higher in the second version. When designing questionnaires, balancing the detail and complexity of questions is important, especially if being collected as a secondary outcome measure. Numerous ways of summarising the same data can provide different information. Future collection and reporting of treatment use should reflect specific trial aims.</p>","PeriodicalId":10324,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Experimental Dermatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ced/llae328","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DERMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Emollients and topical corticosteroids (TCS) prevent and treat flares in eczema. However, topical treatment use is poorly recorded and reported in clinical trials. There is no clear consensus of how best to capture and summarise topical treatment use.

Objectives: To explore different ways of capturing and reporting topical treatment use in childhood eczema.

Methods: Secondary data analysis using 450 participants from the Best Emollients for Eczema (BEE) trial. Participants were allocated to use one type of emollient (lotion, cream, gel, or ointment) 'twice daily and when required' for 16 weeks. Otherwise, clinical management remained unchanged. Parents completed weekly questions about topical therapy use and eczema symptoms. Two versions of topical treatment use questionnaires were used. The first (n=202, 44.9%) asked parents to report treatment use on days 1-7, starting completion on the day they were randomised. The second (n=248, 55.1%) reported use by day of the week (Monday to Sunday), starting completion the first Monday after randomisation. Both underwent Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) review, but the second version was tested more thoroughly using cognitive interviewing techniques, following parent feedback that questions on the first version were confusing. Descriptive statistics compared questionnaire completion and differences in emollient and TCS use.

Results: Overall, questionnaire completion for both emollient and TCS use decreased with time: but at weeks 1 and 16 were 84.7% (381/450) and 58.9% (265/450) for emollient use, and 94.2% (424/450) and 80.4% (362/450) for TCS use, respectively. Fewer emollient use questionnaires were completed with first (33.5%) than the second (87.9%) version (p<0.001). TCS use questionnaire completion were similar for both (84.9% and 87.4%, p=0.002). We present different ways of summarising topical treatment use.

Conclusions: While questionnaire completion was similar for TCS use, emollient use data completeness was higher in the second version. When designing questionnaires, balancing the detail and complexity of questions is important, especially if being collected as a secondary outcome measure. Numerous ways of summarising the same data can provide different information. Future collection and reporting of treatment use should reflect specific trial aims.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
掌握和报告儿童湿疹中局部治疗的使用情况:湿疹试验数据收集的经验教训。
背景:润肤剂和外用皮质类固醇激素(TCS)可预防和治疗湿疹复发。然而,临床试验中对外用治疗方法的记录和报告却很少。对于如何更好地记录和总结外用疗法的使用情况,目前还没有明确的共识:探索获取和报告儿童湿疹局部治疗使用情况的不同方法:方法:利用湿疹最佳润肤剂(BEE)试验中的 450 名参与者进行二次数据分析。参与者被分配使用一种润肤剂(乳液、霜、凝胶或软膏),"每天两次,需要时使用",持续16周。除此之外,临床治疗方法保持不变。家长每周填写有关外用疗法使用情况和湿疹症状的问题。外用疗法使用情况调查问卷有两种版本。第一种问卷(样本数=202,占 44.9%)要求家长报告第 1-7 天的治疗使用情况,并在随机分配当天开始填写。第二种问卷(样本数=248,占 55.1%)要求家长报告一周内(周一至周日)的使用情况,从随机分配后的第一个周一开始填写。两份问卷都经过了 "患者与公众参与"(Patient and Public Involvement,PPI)审查,但第二版问卷使用认知访谈技术进行了更全面的测试,因为家长反馈第一版问卷的问题令人困惑。描述性统计比较了问卷完成情况以及润肤剂和 TCS 使用情况的差异:总体而言,随着时间的推移,使用润肤剂和使用 TCS 的问卷完成率都有所下降:但在第 1 周和第 16 周,使用润肤剂的完成率分别为 84.7%(381/450)和 58.9%(265/450),使用 TCS 的完成率分别为 94.2%(424/450)和 80.4%(362/450)。第一版(33.5%)润肤剂使用情况调查问卷的完成率低于第二版(87.9%)(P结论:虽然三氯氢硅使用情况的问卷完成率相似,但润肤剂使用情况的数据完成率在第二版中更高。在设计问卷时,平衡问题的细节和复杂程度非常重要,尤其是在作为次要结果指标收集问卷时。对相同数据的多种总结方式可以提供不同的信息。今后对治疗使用情况的收集和报告应反映具体的试验目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
2.40%
发文量
389
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Experimental Dermatology (CED) is a unique provider of relevant and educational material for practising clinicians and dermatological researchers. We support continuing professional development (CPD) of dermatology specialists to advance the understanding, management and treatment of skin disease in order to improve patient outcomes.
期刊最新文献
Monoclonal Antibodies for the Management of Cutaneous Lupus Erythematosus: An Update on the Current Treatment Landscape. Online Sourcing of Medications: The patient buying medication from online pharmacies abroad. Successful Treatment of Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria using Tralokinumab: A Case Report. An unusual case of dorsal hand papules and nodules. Pustular annular erythema triggered by Empaglifozin.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1