Development of a Skin-Directed Scoring System for Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and Epidermal Necrolysis: A Delphi Consensus Exercise.

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.

Duke Scholars

Author Sabrina Michelle Shearer Dermatology

Author Adela Rambi Guanco Cardones Dermatology

Author Daniela Kroshinsky Dermatology

Altmetric Attention Stats

See more details

Posted by 2 X users

10 readers on Mendeley

Dimensions Citation Stats

3

CITATIONS

3 Total citations

3 Recent citations

2.89 Field Citation Ratio

1.42 Relative Citation Ratio