Shinkai, Kanade

Importance Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) is a rare neutrophilic dermatosis characterized by sterile ulcerative skin lesions. Multiple comorbidities and clinical features have been associated with PG, but no standardized guidelines exist for classifying PG phenotypes. Objective To develop an expert-established classification framework for PG phenotypes to inform treatment guidelines and future research endeavors. Evidence Review In this modified Delphi consensus study that included 23 board-certified dermatologists and Medical Dermatology Society members with expertise in PG, panelists completed 5 rounds of anonymous, iterative online surveys that were administered from December 2023 through July 2025. Before the beginning of the consensus exercise, a literature review was performed by nonvoting researchers to summarize existing data on PG clinical associations and comorbidities. A PubMed search from inception to September 2023 identified observational studies, narrative reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses describing PG clinical associations and comorbidities that were published in English. Experts indicated their agreement with proposed PG phenotypes and disease modifiers with a consensus threshold of 70% or greater. Anonymous comments and aggregated results were presented in each subsequent round. In the final round, a framework of PG phenotypes and disease modifiers was proposed for agreement. Findings Twenty-three board-certified dermatologists and Medical Dermatology Society members with expertise in PG completed 5 rounds of iterative surveys. Consensus was reached on the final set of PG phenotypes and disease modifiers, with 83% of experts in agreement. PG phenotypes were overall classified into 2 major groups: PG with autoinflammatory syndromes and nonsyndromic PG. Nonsyndromic PG included 4 phenotypes: inflammatory bowel disease–associated PG, PG in association with hematologic cancers and blood dyscrasias, drug-induced PG, and other (including idiopathic) PG. Disease modifiers of PG phenotype presentations included involvement of special sites (head/neck, genitals, or peristomal skin) and extracutaneous manifestations. Conclusions and Relevance This expert-established, descriptive framework provides a standardized classification system for distinct PG phenotypes and its modifiers. This nomenclature may inform upcoming clinical guidelines and allow for consistency in reporting epidemiological research and outcomes among patients with PG.

Importance Scoring systems for Stevens-Johnson syndrome and epidermal necrolysis (EN) only estimate patient prognosis and are weighted toward comorbidities and systemic features; morphologic terminology for EN lesions is inconsistent. Objectives To establish consensus among expert dermatologists on EN terminology, morphologic progression, and most-affected sites, and to build a framework for developing a skin-directed scoring system for EN. Evidence Review A Delphi consensus using the RAND/UCLA appropriateness criteria was initiated with a core group from the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists to establish agreement on the optimal design for an EN cutaneous scoring instrument, terminology, morphologic traits, and sites of involvement. Findings In round 1, the 54 participating dermatology hospitalists reached consensus on all 49 statements (30 appropriate, 3 inappropriate, 16 uncertain). In round 2, they agreed on another 15 statements (8 appropriate, 7 uncertain). There was consistent agreement on the need for a skin-specific instrument; on the most-often affected skin sites (head and neck, chest, upper back, ocular mucosa, oral mucosa); and that blanching erythema, dusky erythema, targetoid erythema, vesicles/bullae, desquamation, and erosions comprise the morphologic traits of EN and can be consistently differentiated. Conclusions and Relevance This consensus exercise confirmed the need for an EN skin-directed scoring system, nomenclature, and differentiation of specific morphologic traits, and identified the sites most affected. It also established a baseline consensus for a standardized EN instrument with consistent terminology.

Abstract Pyoderma gangrenosum (PG) lacks consensus regarding treatment, and no prior studies assess treatment satisfaction in PG. The objective of this study was to determine patient‐reported satisfaction in the treatment of PG, and associations with satisfaction. Methodology was a multicenter cross‐sectional survey for patients who received systemic medication(s) to treat PG. Thirty‐five patients completed the survey (mean age: 54.0 years, 65.7% female, response rate: 81.4%). Mean (± SD) SATMED‐Q score was 75.0 (±16.2, range: 67.6‐85.3). Older patients (72.6 ± 23.6 for 18‐39 years, 74.4 ± 16.1 for 40‐59, 77.1 ± 11.6 for 60+), plus those with higher incomes (72.9 ± 20.3 for $0‐49 000; 74.0 ± 17.6 for $50 000‐99 000; 79.0 ± 14.6 for $100 000+) and education status (69.4 ± 14.3 for high school equivalent, 72.9 ± 15.9 for undergraduate, 91.7 ± 10.6 for graduate), were more satisfied with treatment. Ulcerative PG had higher SATMED‐Q scores (79.0 ± 13.2) than other subtypes (66.2 ± 19.3). For local therapy, wound care, or pain control, 63.2%, 100%, and 75% were satisfied, respectively. The mean DLQI was 8.6 (±7.6, range: 0‐29), and higher DLQI was associated with decreased satisfaction. Satisfaction with providers was positively correlated with global satisfaction (Pearson's r = 0.638). The presence of pain and/or depression influenced both SATMED‐Q (72.8 ± 18.8 with pain, 78.3 ± 11.2 without; 68.2 ± 18.8 with depression, 80.1 ± 12.2 without) and DLQI scores (12.1 ± 8.1 with pain, 3.9 ± 3.4 without; 10.3 ± 7.1 with depression, 7.4 ± 8.0 without). To optimize the patient experience, non‐modifiable associations should be individually considered, and potentially modifiable associations such as satisfaction with specific providers, pain, and depression, may be targeted for management.

Purpose To examine validity evidence for a standardized patient scenario assessing medical students’ ability to promote value using patient-centered communication (in response to a patient requesting an unnecessary test) and to explore the potential effect of various implementation and curricular factors on student scores. Method Third-year medical students (N = 516) from 5 U.S. MD-granting medical schools completed the communication scenario between 2014 and 2017 as part of a larger objective structured clinical examination (OSCE). Centralized raters assessed performance using an 11-item checklist. The authors collected multiple sources of validity evidence. Results The mean checklist score was 0.85 (standard deviation 0.09). Interrater reliability for checklist scores was excellent (0.87, 95% confidence interval = 0.78–0.93). Generalizability and Phi-coefficients were, respectively, 0.65 and 0.57. Scores decreased as the number of OSCE stations increased ( r = −0.15, P = .001) and increased when they were used for summative purposes ( r = 0.26, P < .001). Scores were not associated with curricular time devoted to high-value care ( r = 0.02, P = .67) and decreased when more clerkships were completed before the assessment ( r = −0.12, P = .006). Conclusions This multisite study provides validity evidence supporting the use of scenario scores to assess the ability of medical students to promote value in clinical encounters using patient-centered communication. Findings illuminate the potential effect of OSCE structure and purpose on student performance and suggest clerkship learning experiences may not reinforce what students are taught in the formal curriculum regarding high-value care. Devoting more time to the topic appears insufficient to counteract this erosion.