Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 287

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical measures of disease severity and outcome in psoriasis: a critical appraisal of their quality: MEASURES OF SEVERITY IN PSORIASIS

Ashcroft, Li Wan Po, Williams, Griffiths·1999·British Journal of Dermatology

Abstract

In clinical trials, a wide range of outcome measures has been used to evaluate the severity of psoriasis and its response to treatment. Despite their widespread use, many measures have received little attention with regards to their reliability and validity. Selecting an appropriately developed measurement tool is therefore of critical importance. We conducted a literature survey to examine the status of clinical outcome measures used in psoriasis research. The measures most commonly used were individual sign scores, e.g. for erythema, plaque thickness or scaling, and pooled indices, e.g. the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index. None of these, however, systematically fulfilled all the requirements of a validated instrument for disease assessment. Ideally, a core set of reliable and validated outcome measures for use in all psoriasis clinical trials is needed. Objective instrumental methods should minimise observer variation, but unless a simple non-invasive method can be developed, the uptake of such technology will probably be limited by cost and lack of practicality. Moreover, the translation of instrumental readings into clinically relevant measures is always a major problem, and for none of the methods has there been a robust mapping of instrumental readings on to a clinically meaningful scale. Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate and sensitive parameters to use as surrogate measures for capturing the distress which psoriatic patients feel but which is not measured with sufficient sensitivity or precision with current quality of life or distress questionnaires.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.02963.x

Cites

17 of 17 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 17 references

Cited by

See all 287

Metadata

Authors
Ashcroft, Po, L. W., Williams, & Griffiths
Venue
British Journal of Dermatology
Published
1999-08
Volume
141
Issue
2
Pages
185-191
ISSN
0007-0963 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2153113150
Cited by
287
References
17
FWCI
1.39
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: Clinical measures of disease severity and outcome in psoriasis: a critical appraisal of their quality: MEASURES OF SEVERITY IN PSORIASIS. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.02963.x
The paper
Ashcroft, Po, L. W., Williams, & Griffiths. (1999). Clinical measures of disease severity and outcome in psoriasis: a critical appraisal of their quality: MEASURES OF SEVERITY IN PSORIASIS. British Journal of Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.02963.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.