Cited by 87Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchDermatology and Skin Diseases

Global Burden of Skin Disease as Reflected in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Open access
Karimkhani, Chante, Boyers, Lindsay N., Prescott, Laura, Welch, Vivian, Delamere, Finola M., Nasser, Mona, Zaveri, Amrapali, Hay, Roderick J. +7 more·2014·JAMA Dermatology

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Research prioritization should be guided by impact of disease. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether systematic reviews and protocol topics in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) 2010 project. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Two investigators independently assessed 15 skin conditions in the CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation from November 1, 2013, to December 6, 2013. The 15 skin diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010. An official publication report of all reviews and protocols published by the Cochrane Skin Group (CSG) was also obtained to ensure that no titles were missed. There were no study participants other than the researchers, who worked with databases evaluating CDSR and GBD 2010 skin condition disability data. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Relationship of CDSR topic coverage (systematic reviews and protocols) with percentage of total 2010 DALYs, 2010 DALY rank, and DALY percentage change from 1990 to 2010 for 15 skin conditions. RESULTS: All 15 skin conditions were represented by at least 1 systematic review in CDSR; 69% of systematic reviews and 67% of protocols by the CSG covered the 15 skin conditions. Comparing the number of reviews/protocols and disability, dermatitis, melanoma, nonmelanoma skin cancer, viral skin diseases, and fungal skin diseases were well matched. Decubitus ulcer, psoriasis, and leprosy demonstrated review/protocol overrepresentation when matched with corresponding DALYs. In comparison, acne vulgaris, bacterial skin diseases, urticaria, pruritus, scabies, cellulitis, and alopecia areata were underrepresented in CDSR when matched with corresponding DALYs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Degree of representation in CDSR is partly correlated with DALY metrics. The number of published reviews/protocols was well matched with disability metrics for 5 of the 15 studied skin diseases, while 3 skin diseases were overrepresented, and 7 were underrepresented. Our results provide high-quality and transparent data to inform future prioritization decisions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamadermatol.2014.709

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • There remains a mismatch between resource allocation and the skin diseases with the greatest disability burden, both in grant funding and systematic reviews.

    “There remains a mismatch between resource allocation and the skin diseases with the greatest disability burden – both in grant funding and systematic reviews”

    From Global Burden of Skin Disease: Inequities and Innovations (2017) · cites this paper as [30]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 22 · Cited by 87

Authors
Karimkhani, C., Boyers, L. N., Prescott, L., Welch, V., Delamere, F. M., Nasser, M., Zaveri, A., Hay, R. J., Vos, T., Murray, C. J. L., Margolis, D. J., Hilton, J., MacLehose, H., Williams, H. C., & Dellavalle, R. P.
Affiliations
  • Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York
  • Georgetown University (US)
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Queen's Medical Centre (GB)
  • University of Plymouth (GB)
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • International Foundation for Dermatology, London, England
  • University of Washington (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Cochrane Canada (CA)
  • Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust (GB)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
Corresponding author
Dellavalle, Robert P.
Venue
JAMA Dermatology
Published
2014-09-01
Volume
150
Issue
9
Pages
945
ISSN
2168-6068 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1997638308
Cited by
87
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 4
FWCI
12.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • JAMA Dermatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10246)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Dermatology › Dermatology and Skin Diseases
Keywords
skin diseases, global burden of disease, disability-adjusted life years, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, research prioritization, dermatology research, systematic reviews, psoriasis, leprosy, pressure ulcers, acne, fungal skin infection, viral skin infections, melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancer
MeSH terms
Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Skin Diseases, Databases, Factual, Cost of Illness, Quality-Adjusted Life Years

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review