Sara A Berg1, Howa Yeung2, Joseph C English3, Emily L Keimig4, Ellen J Kim1, Robert G Micheletti1, Karolyn A Wanat5, Marc A Judson6, Robert P Baughman7, Misha Rosenbach1. 1. University of Pennsylvania, Department of Dermatology, Philadelphia, PA. 2. Emory University School of Medicine, Department of Dermatology, Atlanta, GA. 3. University of Pittsburgh, Department of Dermatology, Pittsburgh, PA. 4. Northwestern University, Department of Dermatology, Chicago, IL. 5. University of Iowa Carver College of Medicine, Department of Dermatology and Pathology, Iowa City, IA. 6. Albany Medical College, Albany, NY. 7. University of Cincinnati Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH.
Abstract
Background: Recently two outcome instruments have been developed and validated for assessing cutaneous sarcoidosis in a live, in-person setting. Teledermatology is a rapidly growing field; yet, to date, no instrument has been validated for use in a remote setting, which could ultimately impact clinical trial design. Objective: To assess the interrater reliability of these outcome instruments for store-and-forward teledermatology. Methods: Seven sarcoidosis experts, including both pulmonologists and dermatologists, scored photographs of cutaneous sarcoidosis lesions in 13 patients utilizing the Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Index (CSAMI), the Sarcoidosis Activity and Severity Index (SASI) and the Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Interrater reliability was assessed for each instrument and was compared to results obtained from a prior study involving sarcoidosis experts evaluating the same patient population in an in-person setting. Results: Interrater reliability (presented as ICC [95%CI]) was poor for the CSAMI Activity scale (0.36 [0.16 - 0.65]) and the CSAMI Damage scale (0.17 [0.04 - 0.43]) and was fair for the Modified Facial SASI (0.59 [0.36 - 0.82]) and the PGA (0.47 [0.23 - 0.74]). All results were inferior to those obtained from the prior studies validating these instruments for in-person use. Conclusions: Given the superiority of these instruments when utilized in person, it is recommended to have an on-site sarcoidosis expert evaluate cutaneous sarcoidosis lesions whenever possible. (Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2017; 34: 165-169). Copyright:
Background: Recently two outcome instruments have been developed and validated for assessing cutaneous sarcoidosis in a live, in-person setting. Teledermatology is a rapidly growing field; yet, to date, no instrument has been validated for use in a remote setting, which could ultimately impact clinical trial design. Objective: To assess the interrater reliability of these outcome instruments for store-and-forward teledermatology. Methods: Seven sarcoidosis experts, including both pulmonologists and dermatologists, scored photographs of cutaneous sarcoidosis lesions in 13 patients utilizing the Cutaneous Sarcoidosis Activity and Morphology Index (CSAMI), the Sarcoidosis Activity and Severity Index (SASI) and the Physician Global Assessment (PGA). Interrater reliability was assessed for each instrument and was compared to results obtained from a prior study involving sarcoidosis experts evaluating the same patient population in an in-person setting. Results: Interrater reliability (presented as ICC [95%CI]) was poor for the CSAMI Activity scale (0.36 [0.16 - 0.65]) and the CSAMI Damage scale (0.17 [0.04 - 0.43]) and was fair for the Modified Facial SASI (0.59 [0.36 - 0.82]) and the PGA (0.47 [0.23 - 0.74]). All results were inferior to those obtained from the prior studies validating these instruments for in-person use. Conclusions: Given the superiority of these instruments when utilized in person, it is recommended to have an on-site sarcoidosis expert evaluate cutaneous sarcoidosis lesions whenever possible. (Sarcoidosis Vasc Diffuse Lung Dis 2017; 34: 165-169). Copyright:
Authors: Renato Goreshi; Joyce Okawa; Matt Rose; Rui Feng; Lela A Lee; Christopher B Hansen; Carolyn A Bangert; M Kari Connolly; Mark D Davis; Jeff P Callen; Nicole M Fett; Steven S Fakharzadeh; Jennie T Clarke; Victoria P Werth Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 8.551
Authors: Misha Rosenbach; Dedee F Murrell; Jean-Claude Bystryn; Sam Dulay; Sarah Dick; Steve Fakharzadeh; Russell Hall; Neil J Korman; Julie Lin; Joyce Okawa; Amit G Pandya; Aimee S Payne; Mathew Rose; David Rubenstein; David Woodley; Carmela Vittorio; Benjamin B Werth; Erik A Williams; Lynne Taylor; Andrea B Troxel; Victoria P Werth Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 8.551
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: Marc A Judson; Robert P Baughman; Ulrich Costabel; Marjolein Drent; Kevin F Gibson; Ganesh Raghu; Hidenobu Shigemitsu; Joseph B Barney; Daniel A Culver; Nabeel Y Hamzeh; Marlies S Wijsenbeek; Carlo Albera; Isham Huizar; Prasheen Agarwal; Carrie Brodmerkel; Rosemary Watt; Elliot S Barnathan Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Robert P Baughman; Marc A Judson; Alvin Teirstein; Elyse E Lower; Kim Lo; Rozsa Schlenker-Herceg; Elliot S Barnathan Journal: Am J Clin Dermatol Date: 2008 Impact factor: 7.403
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