BACKGROUND AND DESIGN: The assessment of the severity of cutaneous photodamage and its response to treatment is an impractical consideration for most practitioners without extensive experience or recourse to high-quality, standardized, baseline photographs. To address this problem, a nine-point photonumeric standard scale was developed using photographs of subjects representing grades of photodamage from none to severe. This scale was formally tested in a side-by-side comparison with a conventional and widely used written descriptive scale. A panel of seven graders used both scales to score two sets of 25 photographs of photodamaged individuals, and the intergrader agreement and repeatability for the scales were calculated. RESULTS: The photonumeric scale demonstrated significantly greater agreement between graders than did the descriptive scale (chance-corrected agreements of 0.31 and 0.11, respectively, P less than .0001) with no significant difference in repeatability between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the photonumeric standard scale is superior to existing methodology in the accurate assessment of cutaneous photodamage and would be a useful adjunct to studies of the efficacy of skin repair agents for this indication.
BACKGROUND AND DESIGN: The assessment of the severity of cutaneous photodamage and its response to treatment is an impractical consideration for most practitioners without extensive experience or recourse to high-quality, standardized, baseline photographs. To address this problem, a nine-point photonumeric standard scale was developed using photographs of subjects representing grades of photodamage from none to severe. This scale was formally tested in a side-by-side comparison with a conventional and widely used written descriptive scale. A panel of seven graders used both scales to score two sets of 25 photographs of photodamaged individuals, and the intergrader agreement and repeatability for the scales were calculated. RESULTS: The photonumeric scale demonstrated significantly greater agreement between graders than did the descriptive scale (chance-corrected agreements of 0.31 and 0.11, respectively, P less than .0001) with no significant difference in repeatability between the two methods. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that the photonumeric standard scale is superior to existing methodology in the accurate assessment of cutaneous photodamage and would be a useful adjunct to studies of the efficacy of skin repair agents for this indication.
Authors: L C Mullany; G L Darmstadt; J Katz; S K Khatry; S C LeClerq; R K Adhikari; J M Tielsch Journal: Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed Date: 2005-10-13 Impact factor: 5.747
Authors: Tara Behroozian; Lauren T Milton; Neil H Shear; Erin McKenzie; Yasmeen Razvi; Irene Karam; Kucy Pon; Henry Lam; Emily Lam; Edward Chow Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-11-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: David A Gunn; Helle Rexbye; Christopher E M Griffiths; Peter G Murray; Amelia Fereday; Sharon D Catt; Cyrena C Tomlin; Barbara H Strongitharm; Dave I Perrett; Michael Catt; Andrew E Mayes; Andrew G Messenger; Martin R Green; Frans van der Ouderaa; James W Vaupel; Kaare Christensen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-12-01 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: R E B Watson; S Ogden; L F Cotterell; J J Bowden; J Y Bastrilles; S P Long; C E M Griffiths Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2009-04-28 Impact factor: 9.302