You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 134 No. 4, April 1998 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Correspondence
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on ISI (9)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal


Interobserver Variation in the Assessment of Rosacea

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Rosacea is a common dermatological condition, for which no therapy is 100% effective. Evaluations generally compare one type of treatment with controls.1-2 Little information comparing alternative forms of treatment for rosacea is available. One of the issues in evaluating different approaches to managing the disease is the subjectivity involved in grading signs and symptoms. This problem is compounded by the use of different observers in grading the severity of rosacea.

This study was designed to test the reliability of 2 different scales developed for diagnosing patients with rosacea. One scale, developed in England, is called the Walsgrave Hospital Rosacea Scaling System.3 The other scale, developed in the United States at the SMDC Health System, Duluth, Minn, is called the Duluth Rosacea Scoring Instrument.

Nine clinical evaluators (2 dermatologists, 2 family practitioners, a nurse clinician, a nurse practitioner, a pediatrician, an internist, and an ear, nose, and throat specialist) scored 18 . . . [Full Text of this Article]



THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Effect of Treatment of Helicobacter pylori Infection on Rosacea
Bamford et al.
Arch Dermatol 1999;135:659-663.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1998 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.