Citations 2
Development of a Core Outcome Domain Set for Facial Aging
Dirr, McKenzie A. , Ahmed, Areeba, Schlessinger, Daniel I., Lazaro-Camp, Vanessa, Smith, SJ, Gullapalli, Thanvi, Dragovic, Doroteja, Chang, Joycie, Zhang, Elizabeth, Alam, Murad, Group, Facial Aging Core Outcome Domain Set Study, Anvery, Noor , Kang, Bianca Y. , Wong, Clarissa, Iyengar, Sanjana, Yanes, Arianna F. , Cotseones, Jill, Ashchyan, Hovik J. , Patel, P. M., Sheikh, Umar A., Franklin, Matthew , Hanna, Courtney, Chiren, Sarah G., Schmitt, J, Furlan, Karina C., Alexiades, Macrene, Alhusayen, Raed, Alster, Tina S. , Beer, Kenneth, Bertucci, Vince , Bloom, Jason D. , Briceño, César A., Bucay, Vivian, Butterwick, Kimberly J., Hugues, Cartier, Casabona, Gabriela, Connolly, Karen , Cox, Sue Ellen , Darmanescu, Monica, Boulle, Koenraad De , Desai, Shraddha, Donofrio, Lisa, Dover, Jeffrey S., Draelos, Zoe, Eisen, Daniel B. , El-Domyati, Moetaz, El-Garem, Yehia, Fischer, John, Fitzgerald, Rebecca, GALADARI, Hassan, Gladstone, Hayes B., Goldman, Mitchel P., Goodman, Greg J., Hanke, C. William , Humphrey, Shannon, Ibrahim, Sherrif F., Jagdeo, Jared, Karen, Julie, Kauvar, Arielle, Ag, Kibbi, KIM, JENNY, Lacerda, D T D, Lask, G, Lopez, Grace M., Lupo, Mary P. , Mariwalla, Kavita , Matarasso, Seth, Mekokishvili, L, Narins, Rhoda S., Ogilvie, P, Orringer, Jeffrey S. , Osaki, Tammy H. , Ozog, David, Pacheco, Theresa, Polder, Kristel, Rossi, Anthony M, Sadick, Neil, Saedi, Nazanin, Schlessinger, Joel, Sharad, Jaishree , Shenoy, SuchitraM, Sinclair, Rd, Solish, Nowell, Piansay‐Soriano, Miriam Emily , Sulyman, Omotara , Szeimies, Rolf‐Markus , Tanzi, Elizabeth L., Taub, Amy Forman , Taylor, Mark B., Thomas, J. Regan, Torezan, Luis, Tosti, Antonella, Touma, Dany, Almeida, Ada Regina Trindade de , Vedamurthy, Maya , Viana, Giovanni, Waldman, Abigail, Weinkle, Susan, Weiss, Robert, Poon, Emily, Cartee, Todd V. , Sobanko, Joseph F. , Eisen, Daniel B. , Ahmed, Areeba , Schlessinger, Daniel Isaac , Lazaro-Camp, Vanessa J, Christensen, Rachel E. , Ibrahim, Sarah A. , Cotseones, J.K., Umar, Sheikh Ahmad , Furlan, Karina Colossi , Alexiades, Macrene , Alhusayen, Raed , Beer, Kenneth Robert, Briceño, César Augusto , Bucay, Vivian , Casabona, Gabriela , Cotofana, Sebastian , Desai, Shraddha , Dover, Jeffrey S. , Draelos, Zoe Diana , Eisen, Daniel B., El-Domyati, Moetaz M. , El-Garem, Yehia, Fitzgerald, Rebecca, Friedmann, Daniel P. , Galadari, Hassan , Gladstone, Hayes B., Goldman, Mitchel P. , Goodman, Greg , Green, Jeremy B. , Halachmi, Shlomit , Humphrey, Shannon , Jagdeo, Jared R. , Jiang, Shang I. Brian , Kauvar, Arielle N.B. , Kibbi, Abdul‐Ghani , Kim, John V. S., LASK, GARY P., Matarasso, Seth L., Narins, Rhoda S., Ogilvie, Patricia , Osaki, Tammy H. , Pacheco, Theresa , Polder, Kristel D., Saedi, Nazanin, Shenoy, Manjunath , Sinclair, Rod, Solish, Nowell , Torezan, Luís , Tosti, Antonellá , Waldman, Abigail , Weiss, Robert, Maher, Ian A. , Kirkham, Jamie J
JAMA Dermatology | June 17, 2026 | Volume: 162 | Issue: 8 | Pages: 829
10.1001/jamadermatol.2026.1697
Importance Currently, there are no standardized outcome domains or measures in clinical trials for facial aging. Heterogeneity in outcome domains and measurement instruments across clinical trials creates difficulty in directly comparing interventions, determining superior therapies, and developing high-quality meta-analyses. Objective To develop a core outcome set (COS) of essential domains to be reported in clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of interventions for facial aging. Evidence Review PubMed/Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL were searched from September 2005 to September 2015. An updated search of the same databases was performed from September 2015 to February 2026. Studies were included if (1) they were randomized clinical trial or controlled clinical trial in design, (2) they assessed the efficacy or safety of an intervention for facial aging, (3) they were published in English, and (4) they involved human participants. Complementary sources, including patient interviews, were used to capture further relevant outcomes. Two rounds of Delphi surveys, followed by consensus meetings, were used to identify outcome domains considered most important by both patient and physician stakeholders. Findings The final COS consists of 6 outcome domains: (1) overall convenience of treatment; (2) time to return to normal work and social activity; (3) overall assessment of focused area of treatment (at the point in time when treatment is expected to provide peak benefit); (4) duration of treatment effect; (5) severity of persistent local or systemic adverse events, including pigmentary change, skin texture change, delayed healing, scarring, and serious adverse events; and (6) patient satisfaction with treatment. Conclusions and Relevance The 6 outcome domains identified through a Delphi consensus are recommended for reporting in future facial aging trials to ensure that outcomes that matter most to patients and clinicians are measured and that results are comparable across interventions.
Evidence‐ and consensus‐based (S3) Guidelines for the Treatment of Actinic Keratosis – International League of Dermatological Societies in cooperation with the European Dermatology Forum – Short version
Werner, Ricardo Niklas , Stockfleth, Eggert , Connolly, S. M., Correia, Osvaldo, Erdmann, R., Gupta, Aditya K. , Jacobs, Anja , Kerl, H., Martin, George M. , Paquet, Maryse, Pariser, David M. , Rosumeck, Stefanie , Röwert‐Huber, Hans‐Joachim, Sahota, A., Sangüeza, Omar P., Sporbeck, Birte, Swanson, Neil A. , Torezan, Luís , Nast, Alexander , Foley, Peter Anthony , Lim, Henry W. , Shumack, Stephen P.
Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology | September 15, 2015 | Volume: 29 | Issue: 11 | Pages: 2069-2079
AbstractBackgroundActinic keratosis (AK) is a frequent health condition attributable to chronic exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Several treatment options are available and evidence based guidelines are missing.ObjectivesThe goal of these evidence‐ and consensus‐based guidelines was the development of treatment recommendations appropriate for different subgroups of patients presenting with AK. A secondary aim of these guidelines was the implementation of knowledge relating to the clinical background of AK, including consensus‐based recommendations for the histopathological definition, diagnosis and the assessment of patients.MethodsThe guidelines development followed a pre‐defined and structured process. For the underlying systematic literature review of interventions for AK, the methodology suggested by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) statement and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was adapted. All recommendations were consented during a consensus conference using a formal consensus methodology. Strength of recommendations was expressed based on the GRADE approach. If expert opinion without external evidence was incorporated into the reasoning for making a certain recommendation, the rationale was provided. The Guidelines underwent open public review and approval by the commissioning societies.ResultsVarious interventions for the treatment of AK have been assessed for their efficacy. The consenting procedure led to a treatment algorithm as shown in the guidelines document. Based on expert consensus, the present guidelines present recommendations on the classification of patients, diagnosis and histopathological definition of AK. Details on the methods and results of the systematic literature review and guideline development process have been published separately.ConclusionsInternational guidelines are intended to be adapted to national or regional circumstances (regulatory approval, availability and reimbursement of treatments).