4.3 Article

Validation of a novel patient-operated device for measuring skin barrier function in atopic dermatitis

期刊

SKIN RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 27, 期 5, 页码 824-830

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/srt.13027

关键词

agreement; atopic dermatitis; barrier; capacitance; correlation; hydration; transepidermal water loss

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that GPSkin showed strong correlation with AquaFlux and Corneometer in measuring TEWL and capacitance in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD), indicating its potential utility in the treatment of this skin condition.
Background Transepidermal water loss (TEWL) and capacitance are used in atopic dermatitis (AD) trials to provide objective data on clinical change and response to therapy. Many barrier devices are costly, limiting their utility. GPSkin is a novel low-cost, patient-operable device that measures both TEWL and capacitance via smartphone application. Objective This validation study investigated the correlation of GPSkin with the AquaFlux and Corneometer, and the reliability of these devices, in patients with AD. Methods Fifty AD patients with varying disease severity performed self-measurements with GPSkin, while investigators collected data with all 3 devices, on both nonlesional and lesional skin. Conclusion GPSkin and AquaFlux demonstrated strong correlation for TEWL on nonlesional and lesional skin by Spearman's correlation (r(s)), independent of device user. For capacitance, GPSkin and the Corneometer showed moderate correlation when obtained by patients, yet a strong correlation when obtained by a clinician. Despite good correlation, GPSkin showed poor agreement with both the AquaFlux and Corneometer in Bland-Altman plots. GPSkin underestimated both TEWL and capacitance. Overall, the devices had good test-retest reliability. None of the devices could discriminate between AD severity states. While GPSkin marks an exciting advancement in barrier technology, further study is needed for validation on AD skin.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据