Dataset Information

Psoriasis Prevalence and Severity by Expert Elicitation.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

An estimated 2-4% of Western populations are thought to have psoriasis, with a regional incidence ranging from 0.09% to 11.43%. Variance in estimates is a result of differences in study populations, methodology, regional differences, and definitions of disease. Reliable prevalence estimates of plaque psoriasis are challenging to establish. Further, the distribution of psoriasis severity in the population is unknown. This study aims to establish the utility of expert elicitation (EE) as a method for estimating unknown parameters in dermatology by (1) estimating the prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population, and (2) estimating previously unknown disease severity distribution.

Methods

An expert panel of 11 Canadian dermatologists with demonstrated expertise in psoriasis was formed. A proof-of-concept EE exercise estimated psoriasis prevalence in the general population in Canada, followed by estimation of psoriasis disease severity distribution by body surface area (BSA). Expert estimates were consolidated using Bayesian methods to statistically model the data and represent uncertainty.

Results

The median prevalence of psoriasis in the adult population using the Bayesian estimate was 3.0% (95% credibility interval, 2.7-3.3%), compared with the estimated mean prevalence of 3.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.2-4.9%). By EE, the estimated cumulative distribution of disease severity assessed by BSA suggests that approximately 50% of patients have a BSA of < 3% and 78% of patients have a BSA of < 10%, with only 2% having a BSA of > 50%.

Conclusion

The EE approach resulted in prevalence estimates that had a narrow distribution and were consistent with published literature, supporting its value in dermatology as a complementary method to help guide decision-making in areas where evidence is scarce or uncertain.

SUBMITTER: Papp KA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8163919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:For many societally important science-based decisions, data are inadequate, unreliable or non-existent, and expert advice is sought. In such cases, procedures for eliciting structured expert judgments (SEJ) are increasingly used. This raises questions regarding validity and reproducibility. This paper presents new findings from a large-scale international SEJ study intended to estimate the global burden of foodborne disease on behalf of WHO. The study involved 72 experts distributed over 134 expert panels, with panels comprising thirteen experts on average. Elicitations were conducted in five languages. Performance-based weighted solutions for target questions of interest were formed for each panel. These weights were based on individual expert's statistical accuracy and informativeness, determined using between ten and fifteen calibration variables from the experts' field with known values. Equal weights combinations were also calculated. The main conclusions on expert performance are: (1) SEJ does provide a science-based method for attribution of the global burden of foodborne diseases; (2) equal weighting of experts per panel increased statistical accuracy to acceptable levels, but at the cost of informativeness; (3) performance-based weighting increased informativeness, while retaining accuracy; (4) due to study constraints individual experts' accuracies were generally lower than in other SEJ studies, and (5) there was a negative correlation between experts' informativeness and statistical accuracy which attenuated as accuracy improved, revealing that the least accurate experts drive the negative correlation. It is shown, however, that performance-based weighting has the ability to yield statistically accurate and informative combinations of experts' judgments, thereby offsetting this contrary influence. The present findings suggest that application of SEJ on a large scale is feasible, and motivate the development of enhanced training and tools for remote elicitation of multiple, internationally-dispersed panels.

Project description:BackgroundThe EU 6th Framework Program (FP)-funded Health and Environment Network (HENVINET) aimed to support informed policy making by facilitating the availability of relevant knowledge on different environmental health issues. An approach was developed by which scientific agreement, disagreement, and knowledge gaps could be efficiently identified, and expert advice prepared in a way that is usable for policy makers. There were two aims of the project: 1) to apply the tool to a relevant issue; the potential health impacts of the widely used plasticizers, phthalates, and 2) to evaluate the method and the tool by asking both scientific experts and the target audience, namely policy makers and stakeholders, for their opinions.MethodsThe tool consisted of an expert consultation in several steps on the issue of phthalates in environmental health. A diagram depicting the cause-effect chain, from the production and use of phthalates to potential health impacts, was prepared based on existing reviews. This was used as a basis for an online questionnaire, through which experts in the field were consulted. The results of this first round of consultation laid the foundation for a new questionnaire answered by an expert panel that, subsequently, also discussed approaches and results in a workshop. One major task of the expert panel was to pinpoint priorities from the cause-effect chain according to their impact on the extent of potential health risks and their relevance for reducing uncertainty. The results were condensed into a policy brief that was sent to policy makers and stakeholders for their evaluation.ResultsThe experts agreed about the substantial knowledge gaps within the field of phthalates. The top three priorities for further research and policy action were: 1) intrauterine exposure, 2) reproductive toxicology, and 3) exposure from medical devices. Although not all relevant information from the cause-effect chain is known for phthalates, most experts thought that there are enough indications to justify a precautionary approach and to restrict their general use. Although some of the experts expressed some scepticism about such a tool, most felt that important issues were highlighted.ConclusionsThe approach used was an efficient way at summarising priority knowledge gaps as a starting point for health risk assessment of compounds, based on their relevance for the risk assessment outcome. We conclude that this approach is useful for supporting policy makers with state-of-the-art scientific knowledge weighed by experts. The method can assist future evidence-based policy making.