The DOI matches its Crossref record; 24 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
What are the best outcome measures for assessing plaque psoriasis severity? A systematic review of the literature
Abstract
Background A wide variety of scoring systems have been proposed to assess severity of psoriasis. Given its importance as a health issue both for patients and health care systems, it is critically important to evaluate the validity and reliability of existing outcome measures. Objective The objective of this systematic review was to assess the extent of validation including the validity, reliability, sensitivity to change and ease of use of available outcome measures for psoriasis. Materials and Methods We conducted a systematic review of all clinical studies (prospective and retrospective) investigating the severity of psoriasis patients and published between January 1980 and June 2009. The following methodological validation and quality criteria were recorded systematically: construct validity, content validity and internal consistency, intra‐observer variation and inter‐observer variation, sensitivity to change and acceptability/ease of use assessed as time required to perform measurement. Results Based on methodological validation and quality criteria, six clinical severity scores were selected and analysed (PASI, BSA, PGA, LS‐PGA, SPI and SAPASI scores). We did not find substantial evidence of construct validity for any of the psoriasis clinical severity scores. Content validity was studied by considering the PASI score as gold standard. The relative content validity was good for the LS‐PGA, PGA, and SPI scores, which correlated strongly with the PASI score. The SAPASI and PASI scores showed moderate correlation. Internal consistency was good for the PASI and LS‐PGA scores. The PASI, BSA, PGA and LS‐PGA scores displayed limited intra‐observer variation. The inter‐observer variation was low for LS‐PGA (ICC < 0.5) and SAPASI, moderate for PASI, SPI and PGA and high for BSA (ICC > 0.8). The PASI score and the SAPASI displayed moderate sensitivity to change. Discussion Based on this systematic review, it appears that none of the severity scores used for psoriasis meets all of the validation criteria required for an ideal score. However, we can conclude that the PASI score is the most extensively studied psoriasis clinical severity score and the most thoroughly validated according to methodological validation criteria. Despite certain limitations, use of the PASI score can be recommended for scientific evaluation of the clinical severity of psoriasis.
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
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931
Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420 · Cited by 24,532
Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012 · Cited by 2,362
Pathogenesis and clinical features of psoriasis
Griffiths, C. E., & Barker, J. N. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61128-3 · Cited by 2,158
Stern, R. S., Nijsten, T., Feldman, S. R., Margolis, D. J., & Rolstad, T. (2004) · Journal of Investigative Dermatology Symposium Proceedings · doi:10.1046/j.1087-0024.2003.09102.x · Cited by 732
Langley, R. G., & Ellis, C. N. (2004) · Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology · doi:10.1016/j.jaad.2004.04.012 · Cited by 614
Schmitt, J., & Wozel, G. (2005) · Dermatology · doi:10.1159/000083509 · Cited by 440
What are the best outcome measurements for atopic eczema? A systematic review
Schmitt, J., Langan, S., & Williams, H. C. (2007) · Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology · doi:10.1016/j.jaci.2007.08.011 · Cited by 388
The minimal detectable change cannot reliably replace the minimal important difference
Turner, D., Schünemann, H. J., Griffith, L. E., Beaton, D. E., Griffiths, A. M., Critch, J. N., & Guyatt, G. H. (2010) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.01.024 · Cited by 356
Ashcroft, Po, L. W., Williams, & Griffiths (1999) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2133.1999.02963.x · Cited by 287
Cited by
Balić, A., Vlašić, D., Žužul, K., Marinović, B., & Bukvić Mokos, Z. (2020) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms21030741 · Cited by 400
Metadata
- Authors
- Puzenat, E., Bronsard, V, Prey, S., Gourraud, P., Aractingi, S., Bagot, M., Cribier, B., Joly, P., Jullien, D., Le Maitre, M., Paul, C., Richard‐Lallemand, M., Ortonne, J., & Aubin, F.
- Venue
- Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-03-04
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- s2
- Pages
- 10-16
- ISSN
- 0926-9959 (ISSN-L)
- 1468-3083
- OpenAlex
- W2092661515
- Cited by
- 309
- References
- 24
- FWCI
- 1.14
- 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: What are the best outcome measures for assessing plaque psoriasis severity? A systematic review of the literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03562.x
- The paper
- Puzenat, E., Bronsard, V, Prey, S., Gourraud, P., Aractingi, S., Bagot, M., Cribier, B., Joly, P., Jullien, D., Le Maitre, M., Paul, C., Richard‐Lallemand, M., Ortonne, J., & Aubin, F. (2010). What are the best outcome measures for assessing plaque psoriasis severity? A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-3083.2009.03562.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.