What's already known about this topic?• The prevalence of psoriasis in children is lower than adults • A significant number of adults with psoriasis first developed skin disease in childhood • Genetic and environmental factors both play an important role in the onset of psoriasis • Disease associations, such as obesity, are an important area of current research activity What does this study add?• Mapping has shown a dramatic increase in the number of published studies over the past 25 years • Studies have been concentrated in Europe, Asia and North America; these studies have largely been case series or cross-sectional studies • Specific studies with standardised methodologies are needed to provide data on the frequency, clinical presentation, risk factors, associated diseases and long-term outcomes for child-onset psoriasis The Epidemiology of Childhood Psoriasis: A Scoping Review AbstractPsoriasis is an inflammatory non-communicable skin disease which affects both adults and children. At present the epidemiology and natural history of psoriasis are not widely understood. This scoping review aimed to map the existing literature on the epidemiology of child-onset psoriasis, provide a comprehensive, clinically useful review and identify research gaps for future studies.Search strategies were developed for OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, Google Scholar and hand-searching; 131 articles meeting the inclusion criteria and were mapped and 107 articles were included for data extraction.Over 25 years there has been a dramatic increase in the volume of published observational epidemiological studies on child-onset psoriasis. The majority were case series or crosssectional studies, concentrated in Europe, Asia and North America. The prevalence of childhood psoriasis was found to be higher in European countries, older children and females. Up to 48.8% of children had psoriasis in a first degree relative. The most frequent subtype was plaque psoriasis and initial site of presentation is most commonly scalp, limbs and trunk. Specific genetic differences have been found between the child-onset and adultonset populations. Case-control studies and cohort studies investigating risk factors for psoriasis onset, comorbidities and long-term health outcomes were extremely limited.The choice of study design and heterogeneity in methodology limit the validity and generalisability on the information, consistency of the results and comparability of the studies. Well-designed studies are needed to provide precise and consistent information about the frequency and clinical presentation, risk factors, associated diseases and longterm outcomes in child-onset psoriasis.

Interleukin (IL)-1beta plays an important role in the inflammatory response that results from traumatic brain injury and antagonism of the actions of this cytokine can affect outcome. We subjected male mice to aseptic cryogenic injury and assessed recovery through anatomical, histological and functional measures following treatment with recombinant mouse IL-1 receptor antagonist (IL-1ra). A single dose (1 microg, i.c.v.) at the time of injury reduced lesion volume 3 days later, as assessed by Nissl staining, and also the number (30%) of FluoroJade-positive degenerating neurones. Mice treated with IL-1ra performed better on the beam balance and in the grid test as compared with vehicle-treated animals. Furthermore, IL-1ra-treated animals showed fewer (40%) nitric oxide synthase-2-positive cells in and around the lesion. These data suggest that activation of the IL-1 receptor following trauma contributes to the pathology and that antagonism can reduce both anatomical and functional consequences of neuroinflammation.

Background Standardized outcome reporting is crucial for trial evidence synthesis and translation of findings into clinical decision‐making. The OMERACT 2.0 Filter and COMET outcome domain taxonomy propose frameworks for consistent reporting of outcomes. There is an absence of a uniform dermatology‐specific reporting strategy that uses precise and consistent outcome definitions. Objectives Our aim was to map efficacy/effectiveness outcomes assessed in dermatological trials to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter as a starting point for developing an outcome taxonomy in dermatology. Methods We critically appraised 10 Cochrane Skin Reviews randomly selected from all 69 Cochrane Skin Reviews published until 01/2015 and the 220 trials included covering a broad spectrum of dermatological conditions and interventions. Efficacy/effectiveness outcomes were mapped to core areas and domains according to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter. The extracted trial outcomes were used for critical appraisal of outcome reporting in dermatology trials and for the preliminary development of a dermatology‐specific outcome taxonomy. Results The allocation of 1086 extracted efficacy/effectiveness outcomes to the OMERACT 2.0 Filter resulted in a hierarchically structured dermatology‐specific outcome classification. In 506 outcomes (47%), the outcome concept to be measured was insufficiently described, hindering meaningful evidence synthesis. Although the core areas assessed in different dermatology trials of the same condition overlap considerably, quantitative evidence synthesis usually failed due to imprecise outcome definitions, non‐comparable outcome measurement instruments, metrics and reporting. Conclusions We present an efficacy/effectiveness outcome classification as a starting point for a dermatology‐specific taxonomy to provide trialists and reviewers with the opportunity to better synthesize and compare evidence.

No abstract

This article summarizes the scientific concepts underlying pragmatic clinical trials as a research technique that is worthy of wider use in dermatology. 5. Which statement is true regarding a pragmatic trial? A. They are typically more costly due to trial size and cost-effectiveness analysis. B. They often require background feasibility or explanatory work beforehand. C. They are the cornerstone of the comparative effectiveness agenda. D. All of the above. quEstions This article has been approved for 1 hour of Category 1 CME credit. To take the quiz, with or without CME credit, follow the link under the "CME ACCREDITATION" heading. For each question, more than one answer may be correct.