Remote identification of new onset pediatric atopic dermatitis - a comparison of diagnostic methods from a post-hoc analysis of the CASCADE prevention trial

Clicks: 30
ID: 326527
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #51 of 412 articles by views in the british journal of dermatology

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 412 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Few validated diagnostic criteria for atopic dermatitis (AD) can diagnose AD without a clinician's exam, and even fewer are validated in very young children. Recently, the Community-based Assessment of Skin Care, Allergies, and Eczema (CASCADE) prevention trial remotely captured parent/caregiver responses to the Childhood Eczema Questionnaire and a Proxy Report of a Clinician AD Diagnosis in children ≤2 years of age. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of Childhood Eczema Questionnaire and Proxy Report of a Clinician AD Diagnosis for the purpose of remote AD diagnosis. METHODS: Data from the CASCADE trial was used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of Childhood Eczema Questionnaire or Proxy Report of a Clinician AD Diagnosis at 12 and 24 months of age in 933 participants with data available for comparison against the reference standard of a clinician's chart diagnosis of AD, present in 26.2% (244/933 at 24 months) of the cohort. Clinicians who acted as the reference standard were primary care clinicians or pediatricians who received additional training in diagnosing AD. RESULTS: Proxy Report of a Clinician AD Diagnosis displayed sensitivity/specificity at 12 months (65.8%/91.3%) and 71.6%/93.2% at 24 months. It also displayed positive and negative predictive values of 72.5%/88.5% at 12 months and 88.3%/82.2% 24 months. The Childhood Eczema Questionnaire showed sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of 46.3%/91.5%/64.5%/83.5% at 12 months and 50.9%/93.2%/84.1%/72.8% at 24 months. A lack of proxy-observed or reported itch or rash were the most common reasons for Childhood Eczema Questionnaire false negative cases. CONCLUSIONS: Proxy Report of a Clinician AD Diagnosis performed well for sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, followed by Childhood Eczema Questionnaire. This U.S. study provides new evidence that supports Proxy Report of a Clinician AD Diagnosis as an adequate approach to identify eczema cases remotely for research in children <2 with access to healthcare.
Reference Key
openalex_W7204252232 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Milie M. Fang, Jordan Gillespie, Robyn Okereke, Cynthia D. Morris, Hywel C Williams, Mary F. Henningfield, Donald E. Nease, Rowena J Dolor, Katrina Ramsey, Annette Vu, LeAnn Michaels, Eric L. Simpson
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal the british journal of dermatology
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/bjd/ljag347
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/bjd/ljag347
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.