The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Clinical Validation and Guidelines for the SCORAD Index: Consensus Report of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We have previously reported how the SCORAD index was designed. This cumulative index combines objective (extent and intensity of lesions) and subjective (daytime pruritus and sleep loss) criteria. AIMS: To study interobserver variability in scoring for objective SCORAD criteria and to optimize the scoring guidelines. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three scoring sessions were organized in 1993-1994 in Hamburg, Bordeaux and Rotterdam totalizing 19 patients (14 children and 5 adults) and 23 physicians, among whom 12 participated in at least 2 scoring sessions; 169 evaluation sheets have been processed using the SCORAD File Marker Pro software. At each session, total body photographs and close-up views were taken of each patient, and this material was reviewed at the final evaluation. RESULTS: The extent of lesions according to the rule of nines showed interobserver variability mostly for patients with lesions of moderate intensity involving 20-60% of body surface. Intensity items were scored with more consistency overall, but variations subsided especially for oozing/crusts and lichenifications. Low and high scorer profiles and the benefit of training were noted. CONCLUSIONS: This study has allowed to optimize clinical scoring using the SCORAD system. A proposal has been made to grade the severity of atopic dermatitis according to objective criteria in three groups for inclusion in clinical trials. The SCORAD index remains the major criterion for follow-up in trials.
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
Cited by
Kong, H. H., Oh, J., Deming, C., Conlan, S., Grice, E. A., Beatson, M. A., Nomicos, E., Polley, E. C., Komarow, H. D., Program, N. C. S., et al. (2012) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.131029.111 · Cited by 1,808
Wollenberg, A., Barbarot, S., Bieber, T., Christen‐Zaech, S., Deleuran, M., Fink‐Wagner, A., Gieler, U., Girolomoni, G., Lau, S., Muraro, A., et al. (2018) · Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · doi:10.1111/jdv.14891 · Cited by 1,181
Self-citationWollenberg, A., Blauvelt, A., Guttman‐Yassky, E., Worm, M., Lynde, C., Lacour, J. ‐., Spelman, L., Katoh, N., Saeki, H., Poulin, Y., et al. (2021) · British Journal of Dermatology · doi:10.1111/bjd.19574 · Cited by 638
Wollenberg, A., Christen‐Zäch, S., Taieb, A., Paul, C., Thyssen, J. P., de Bruin‐Weller, M., Vestergaard, C., Seneschal, J., Werfel, T., Cork, M. J., et al. (2020) · Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology · doi:10.1111/jdv.16892 · Cited by 493
Self-citationLEWIS-JONES, S. (2006) · International Journal of Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/j.1742-1241.2006.01047.x · Cited by 478
Metadata
- Authors
- Kunz, B., Oranje, A. P., Labrèze, L., Stalder, J.-F., Ring, J., & Taïeb, A.
- Venue
- Dermatology
- Publisher
- S. Karger AG
- Published
- 1997
- Volume
- 195
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 10-19
- ISSN
- 1018-8665 (ISSN-L)
- 1421-9832
- OpenAlex
- W2019286335
- Cited by
- 1,046
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 60.95
- 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 Validation and Guidelines for the SCORAD Index: Consensus Report of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1159/000245677
- The paper
- Kunz, B., Oranje, A. P., Labrèze, L., Stalder, J.-F., Ring, J., & Taïeb, A. (1997). Clinical Validation and Guidelines for the SCORAD Index: Consensus Report of the European Task Force on Atopic Dermatitis. Dermatology. https://doi.org/10.1159/000245677
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.