Global burden of skin disease in 2010 and systematic reviews and protocols in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

2014 Hyderabad

Karimkhani C¹, Boyers L², Prescott L³, Welch V⁴, Delamere F⁵, Nasser M⁶, Zaveri A⁷, Hay R⁸, Vos T⁹, Murray C⁹, Margolis D¹⁰, Hilton J¹¹, MacLehose H¹¹, Williams H³, Dellavalle R¹²

¹Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, USA

²Georgetown University School of Medicine, USA

³Centre of Evidence-Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, UK

⁴Bruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Canada

⁵Cochrane Skin Group, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, UK

⁶Peninsula Dental School, Plymouth University, UK

⁷Institut für Informatik, Universität Leipzig, Germany

⁸International Foundation for Dermatology, UK

⁹Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington, USA

¹⁰Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, USA

¹¹Cochrane Editorial Unit, UK

¹²Colorado School of Public Health, US Department of Veterans Affairs , USA

Background:

Disease burden should help guide research prioritization. The Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2010 compiled data from 1990 to 2010 on 291 diseases and injuries, 1160 disease and injury sequelae, and 67 risk factors in 187 countries. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) is the leading resource for systematic reviews in healthcare, with peer-reviewed systematic reviews that are published by Cochrane Review Groups.

Objectives:

To determine whether systematic review and protocol topics in CDSR reflect disease burden, measured by disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) from the GBD 2010 project. This is one of a series of projects mapping GBD 2010 medical field disease burden to corresponding systematic reviews in CDSR.

Methods:

Two investigators independently assessed 15 skin conditions in CDSR for systematic review and protocol representation according to subject content. The 15 skin diseases were matched to their respective DALYs from GBD 2010. An official publication report by the Cochrane Skin Group was also obtained to ensure that no titles were missed.

Results:

All 15 skin conditions were represented by at least one systematic review in CDSR. 69% of systematic reviews and 67% of protocols by the Skin Group covered the 15 skin conditions. Comparing the number of reviews/protocols and disability, dermatitis, melanoma, non-melanoma skin cancer, viral skin diseases, and fungal skin diseases were well-matched. Decubitus ulcer, psoriasis, and leprosy demonstrated review/protocol over-representation when matched with corresponding DALYs. In comparison, acne vulgaris, bacterial skin diseases, urticaria, pruritus, scabies, cellulitis, and alopecia areata were under-represented in CDSR when matched with corresponding DALYs.

Conclusions:

Degree of representation in CDSR is partly correlated with DALY metrics. The number of published reviews/protocols was well-matched with disability metrics for five of 15 studied skin diseases, while three skin diseases were over-represented and seven under-represented. Our results provide good quality and transparent data to inform future prioritization decisions.