An overview of skin scores used for quantifying hand eczema: a critical update according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine

Authors

  • W. Weistenhöfer,

    1. Institute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schillerstr. 25 + 29, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author
  • T. Baumeister,

    1. Institute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schillerstr. 25 + 29, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author
  • H. Drexler,

    1. Institute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schillerstr. 25 + 29, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author
  • B. Kütting

    1. Institute and Outpatient Clinic of Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schillerstr. 25 + 29, D-91054 Erlangen, Germany
    Search for more papers by this author

  • Conflicts of interest
    None declared.

Birgitta Kütting.
E-mail: birgitta.kuetting@ipasum.uni-erlangen.de

Summary

The present review gives an overview of the enormous variety of skin scores used for assessing severity in patients suffering from hand eczema. In order to evaluate the validity and practical relevance of different scoring systems according to the criteria of evidence-based medicine, in May 2009 we performed a systematic search of the literature using PubMed and the Cochrane Library. A total of 69 articles reporting on 45 different methods for quantifying hand eczema were identified. The panel of methods varied from pure subjective categories to more or less quantitative scoring systems. Furthermore, by focusing on skin scores used in clinical trials in which the results led to the licensing of a systemic or topical drug for treatment of hand eczema, a panel of different scoring systems was identified. In addition to morphological pattern, some scoring systems included subjective complaints, which might cause an individual bias by overestimation of self-reports. Inter- and intraobserver reliability was rarely reported except for three scores. Among these validated scores interobserver reliability was reported for three scores, but only one of the three included reliability within observers (repeatability). Advantages and disadvantages of the different scoring systems are critically discussed. Depending on different indications and particular settings (e.g. occupational screening vs. clinical examinations, evaluating progress of treatment in everyday clinical practice or for research purposes) scoring systems have to fulfil diverging demands. We draw the conclusion that a standardized diagnostic procedure for assessing the severity of hand eczema would facilitate the comparability of outcome of clinical trials. However, scoring systems used for occupational screening have to fulfil different demands compared with scoring systems used for licensing of drugs. This striking difference might be explained by the skin condition, which is generally supposed to be much better in subjects at medical check-ups at the workplace.

Ancillary