The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dermatology quality of life scales -a measure of the impact of skin diseases
Abstract
Patient-generated dermatology quality of life scales (DQOLS) were developed to assess the impact of skin conditions on patients' psychosocial state and everyday activities. The items were derived from the self-reported impacts of their skin condition by 50 dermatology out-patients. The resulting 17 psychosocial items and 12 activities items were assigned five-point scales and self-completed by 118 out-patients. Factor analyses grouped the items into four psychosocial subscales (embarrassment, despair, irritableness, distress) and four activities subscales (everyday, summer, social, sexual). Tests of the psychometric properties indicated that the internal consistency of responses was high, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.92 for the 17 psychosocial items and 0.83 for the 12 activity items. Assessment of reliability based on 41 psoriasis patients attending phototherapy treatment identified good short-term test-retest reliability, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.84 for both the psychosocial and activities scales. Construct validity was confirmed by the ability of the scales to identify clinically expected differences and their greater sensitivity to the impacts of skin problems compared with a widely used generic health status measure. The DQOLS thus form a robust measure of patient-perceived impacts. They were quickly self-completed and provide information that complements traditional clinical indicators. These scales should assist in informing treatment decisions by identifying impacts of different skin conditions and variations in responses among social and cultural groups, as well as guiding priorities for services within the specialty.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT
Martin Bland, J., & Altman, D. (1986) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(86)90837-8 · Cited by 47,965
Cited by
Hongbo, Y., Thomas, C. L., Harrison, M. A., Sam Salek, M., & Finlay, A. Y. (2005) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology · doi:10.1111/j.0022-202x.2005.23621.x · Cited by 854
Gollnick, H., Cunliffe, W., Berson, D., Dreno, B., Finlay, A., Leyden, J. J., Shalita, A. R., & Thiboutot, D. (2003) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1067/mjd.2003.618 · Cited by 817
An Overview of Fungal Infections
Garber, G. (2001) · Drugs · doi:10.2165/00003495-200161001-00001 · Cited by 309
Willke, R. J., Burke, L. B., & Erickson, P. (2004) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/j.cct.2004.09.003 · Cited by 305
FORTUNE, D. G., MAIN, C. J., O'SULLIVAN, T. M., & GRIFFITHS, C. E. M. (1997) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.1997.19472062.x · Cited by 304
Metadata
- Authors
- MORGAN, M., McCREEDY, R., SIMPSON, J., & HAY, R. J.
- Venue
- British Journal of Dermatology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 202-206
- ISSN
- 0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2020215721
- Cited by
- 197
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 5.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dermatology quality of life scales -a measure of the impact of skin diseases. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1997.d01-1169.x
- The paper
- MORGAN, M., McCREEDY, R., SIMPSON, J., & HAY, R. J. (1997). Dermatology quality of life scales -a measure of the impact of skin diseases. British Journal of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1997.d01-1169.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.