Validation of remote atopic dermatitis severity assessment with the Eczema Area and Severity Ondex in children using caregiver‐provided photos and videos. Issue 4 (6th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Croce, Emily A.; Rathouz, Paul J.; Lopes, Fabiana C. P. S.; Leszczynska, Maria; Diaz, Lucia Z.; Levy, Moise L.; Ruth, Jennifer S.; Varshney, Pooja; Rew, Lynn; Matsui, Elizabeth C.
• Is Part Of: Pediatric dermatology. Volume 39:Issue 4(2022)
• Page Start: 547
• Page End: 552
• Publication Date: 2022-05-06
• Subjects: atopic dermatitis -- eczema; Pediatric dermatology -- Periodicals; Children -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 618.925
• DOI: 10.1111/pde.15003
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0736-8046

Abstract

Abstract: Background/Objectives: We sought to quantify the reliability and validity of remote atopic dermatitis (AD) severity assessment using the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) applied to caregiver‐provided photos (p‐EASI) and videos (v‐EASI). Methods: Children (0–17 years) with a physician diagnosis of AD were recruited. Caregivers took photos and a video of their child's skin. A clinician scored in‐person EASI on the same day, then p‐EASI and v‐EASI for each participant 10 days or more between ratings. Two additional clinicians scored p‐EASI and v‐EASI. Lin's concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) was employed to assess criterion validity using in‐person EASI as the gold standard. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated to assess interrater reliability of p‐EASI and v‐EASI. Results: Fifty racially and ethnically diverse children (age [mean ± SD]: 4.3 ± 4.4 years; 42% female) with a range of AD severity (EASI: 6.3 ± 6.4) and Fitzpatrick skin types (1–2: 9%; 3–4: 60%; 5–6: 31%) were enrolled and received in‐person EASI assessment. Fifty had p‐EASI and 49 had v‐EASI by the same in‐person rater, and by two additional raters. The CCC and ICC for p‐EASI were 0.89, 95% CI [0.83, 0.95] and 0.81, 95% CI [0.71, 0.89], respectively. The CCC and ICC for v‐EASI were 0.75, 95% CI [0.63, 0.88] and 0.69, 95% CI [0.51, 0.81], respectively. Conclusions: In this diverse population with a range of skin tones, p‐EASI showed good criterion validity and good interrater reliability. v‐EASI showed moderate to good criterion validity and moderate interrater reliability. Both may be reliable and valid options for remote AD severity assessment.