Correction to ‘Assessing the dynamic changes in vitiligo: Reliability and validity of the Vitiligo Disease Activity Score (VDAS) and Vitiligo Disease Improvement Score (VDIS)’

Abstract

van Geel N, Depaepe L, Vandaele V, Mertens L, Van Causenbroeck J, De Schepper, S, Van Coile L, Van Reempts A, De Vos AS, Papeleu J, Hoorens I, Mertens D, Wolkerstorfer A, Lommerts JE, Speeckaert R. Assessing the dynamic changes in vitiligo: reliability and validity of the vitiligo disease activity score (VDAS) and vitiligo disease improvement score (VDIS). J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2022;36(8):1334–1341. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.18134

In the Results section ‘Raters and participants’, the total body surface affected (range and mean) and name of score was incorrect. This should be a range of 0.01%–35.50% (instead of 0.01%–36.43%) and a median (mean) VESplus (instead of VES) of 1.3% (3.1%) instead of 1.3% (3.2%).

In the Result section ‘Validity’, paragraph b) (‘Construct validity’), as well as in Tables 1 and 2 (in each hypothesis number 2), the correlation between the overall (median of all raters) VDAS₁₅ and VDAS₆₀ and relative percentage worsening (in %) between 2 time points as measured by the VESplus score were incorrect. This should be for VDAS₁₅ rho = 0.733; 95% CI: 0.596–0.828 (instead of 0.791; 95% CI: 0.675–0.869) and for VDAS₆₀ rho = 0.751; 95% CI: 0.622–0.840 (instead of 0.795; 95% CI: 0.680–0.871). The correlation between the overall (median of all raters) VDIS₁₅ and VDIS₆₀ and the relative percentage improvement (in %) between 2 time points as measured by the VESplus score were incorrect. This should be for VDIS₁₅ rho = 0.511; 95% CI: 0.307–0.670 (instead of rho = 0.372 CI: 0.135–0.568) and for VDIS₆₀ rho = 0.610; 95% CI: 0.432–0.743 (instead of rho = 0.486; 95% CI: 0.270–0.656. Additional remark: the terms VDAS_0-15; VDAS_0-60; VDIS_0-15 and VDIS_0-60 in Table 1 and 2 can be replaced (mean the same thing) as VDAS₁₅; VDAS₆₀; VDIS₁₅ and VDIS₆₀.

We apologize for these errors.