J Tiao1,2, R Feng3, S Bird4, J K Choi1,2, J Dunham5, M George5, T C Gonzalez-Rivera5,6, J L Kaufman4, N Khan1,2, J J Luo7, R Micheletti1, A S Payne1, R Price4, C Quinn4, A I Rubin1, A G Sreih5, P Thomas5, J Okawa1, V P Werth1,2. 1. Department of Dermatology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. 2. Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center (Philadelphia), Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. 3. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. 4. Department of Neurology Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. 5. Division of Rheumatology, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. 6. Department of Neurology, GlaxoSmithKline USA, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A. 7. Department of Neurology, Temple University School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that skin disease in dermatomyositis (DM) is best assessed using the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI). Although the CDASI has been validated for use by dermatologists, it has not been validated for use by other physicians such as rheumatologists and neurologists, who also manage patients with DM and assess skin activity in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the CDASI among dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists. METHODS: Fifteen patients with cutaneous DM were assessed using the CDASI and the Physician Global Assessment (PGA) by five dermatologists, five rheumatologists and five neurologists. RESULTS: The mean CDASI activity scores for dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists were 21·0, 21·8 and 20·8, respectively. These mean scores were not different among the specialists. The CDASI damage score means for dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists were 5·3, 7·0 and 4·8, respectively. The mean scores between dermatologists and rheumatologists were significantly different, but the means between dermatologists and neurologists were not. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for interrater reliability for CDASI activity and damage were good to excellent for dermatologists and rheumatologists, and moderate to excellent for neurologists. The ICCs for intrarater reliability for CDASI activity and damage were excellent for dermatologists and rheumatologists and moderate to excellent for neurologists. The PGA displayed lower interrater and intrarater reliability relative to the CDASI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the reliability of the CDASI when used by dermatologists and rheumatologists. The data for its use by neurologists were not as robust.
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown that skin disease in dermatomyositis (DM) is best assessed using the Cutaneous Dermatomyositis Disease Area and Severity Index (CDASI). Although the CDASI has been validated for use by dermatologists, it has not been validated for use by other physicians such as rheumatologists and neurologists, who also manage patients with DM and assess skin activity in clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To assess the reliability of the CDASI among dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists. METHODS: Fifteen patients with cutaneous DM were assessed using the CDASI and the Physician Global Assessment (PGA) by five dermatologists, five rheumatologists and five neurologists. RESULTS: The mean CDASI activity scores for dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists were 21·0, 21·8 and 20·8, respectively. These mean scores were not different among the specialists. The CDASI damage score means for dermatologists, rheumatologists and neurologists were 5·3, 7·0 and 4·8, respectively. The mean scores between dermatologists and rheumatologists were significantly different, but the means between dermatologists and neurologists were not. The intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for interrater reliability for CDASI activity and damage were good to excellent for dermatologists and rheumatologists, and moderate to excellent for neurologists. The ICCs for intrarater reliability for CDASI activity and damage were excellent for dermatologists and rheumatologists and moderate to excellent for neurologists. The PGA displayed lower interrater and intrarater reliability relative to the CDASI. CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the reliability of the CDASI when used by dermatologists and rheumatologists. The data for its use by neurologists were not as robust.
Authors: C O Anyanwu; D F Fiorentino; L Chung; C Dzuong; Y Wang; J Okawa; K Carr; K J Propert; V P Werth Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2015-08-11 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Zuleika L Bonilla-Martinez; Joerg Albrecht; Andrea B Troxel; Lynne Taylor; Joyce Okawa; Sam Dulay; Victoria P Werth Journal: Arch Dermatol Date: 2008-02
Authors: Misha Rosenbach; Howa Yeung; Emily Y Chu; Ellen J Kim; Aimee S Payne; Junko Takeshita; Carmela C Vittorio; Karolyn A Wanat; Victoria P Werth; Joel M Gelfand Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2013-05 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: R Q Klein; C A Bangert; M Costner; M K Connolly; A Tanikawa; J Okawa; M Rose; S S Fakharzadeh; D Fiorentino; L A Lee; R D Sontheimer; L Taylor; A B Troxel; V P Werth Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2008-07-04 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Howa Yeung; Sara Farber; Belinda K Birnbaum; Jonathan Dunham; Alexis Ogdie; Karen C Patterson; Aimee S Payne; Mary K Porteous; Milton D Rossman; Rebecca Sharim; Junko Takeshita; Victoria P Werth; Daniel B Shin; Sarah Price; Misha Rosenbach Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 10.282