Conflicts of interest in dermatology

Conflicts of interest exist in dermatology when professional judgement concerning a primary interest, such as research validity, may be influenced by a secondary interest, such as financial gain from a for-profit organization. Conflict of interest is a condition and not a behaviour, although there is clear evidence that gifts influence behaviour. Little has been written about conflicts of interest in dermatology. This series of papers raises awareness of the subject by exploring it in greater depth from the perspective of a dermatology researcher, an industry researcher, a dermatology journal editor, a health services researcher and a patient representative. Collectively, they illustrate the many ways in which conflicts can pervade the world of dermatology publications and patient support group activities.

Introducing the National Library for Health Skin Conditions Specialist Library

Background: This paper introduces the new National Library for Health Skin Conditions Specialist Library http://www.library.nhs.uk/skin. Description: The aims, scope and audience of the new NLH Skin Conditions Specialist Library, and the composition and functions of its core Project Team, Editorial Team and Stakeholders Group are described. The Library's collection building strategy, resource and information types, editorial policies, quality checklist, taxonomy for content indexing, organisation and navigation, and user interface are all presented in detail. The paper also explores the expected impact and utility of the new Library, as well as some possible future directions for further development. Conclusion: The Skin Conditions Specialist Library is not just another new Web site that dermatologists might want to add to their Internet favourites then forget about it. It is intended to be a practical, "one-stop shop" dermatology information service for everyday practical use, offering high quality, up-to-date resources, and adopting robust evidence-based and knowledge management approaches.

Early allergen exposure and atopic eczema

Background The relationship between exposure to indoor aeroallergens in early life and subsequent eczema is unclear. We have previously failed to show any significant associations between early life exposure to house dust mite and cat fur allergens and either sensitization to these allergens or wheeze. We have also previously reported a lower prevalence of parent-reported, doctor-diagnosed eczema by age 2 years for children exposed to higher concentrations of house dust mite, but no other associations with other definitions of eczema or for exposure to cat allergen. Objectives To extend the exposure–response analysis of allergen exposure and eczema outcomes measured up to age 8 years, and to investigate the role of other genetic and environmental determinants. Methods A total of 593 children (92Æ4% of those eligible) born to all newly pregnant women attending one of three general practitioner surgeries in Ashford, Kent, were followed from birth to age 8 years. Concentrations of house dust mite and cat allergen were measured in dust samples collected from the home at 8 weeks after birth. The risk of subsequent eczema as defined by the U.K. diagnostic criteria was determined according to different levels (quintiles) of allergen exposure at birth. Results By age 8 years, 150 (25Æ3%) children had met the diagnostic criteria for eczema at least once. Visible flexural dermatitis was recorded at least once for 129 (28Æ0%). As in other studies, parental allergic history was positively associated with most eczema outcomes, as were higher maternal education and less crowded homes. No clear linear associations between early exposure to house dust mite or cat allergen were found, regardless of the definition of eczema used. The risk of eczema appeared to increase for the three lowest quintiles of house dust mite allergen exposure (odds ratio, OR 1Æ37 for third quintile compared with first), and then to fall for the two highest quintiles (OR 0Æ66 and 0Æ71) even after controlling for confounding factors. Conclusions The lack of any clear exposure–disease relationship between allergens in early life and subsequent eczema argues against allergen exposure being a major factor causing eczema. If the lower levels of eczema at higher levels of house dust mite are confirmed, then interventions aimed at reducing house dust mite in early infancy could paradoxically increase the risk of subsequent eczema.

How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication

Background: The publication of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals is a fairly complex and stepwise process that involves responding to referees’ comments. Little guidance is available in the biomedical literature on how to deal with such comments. Objective: The objective of this article is to provide guidance to novice writers on dealing with peer review comments in a way that maximizes the chance of subsequent acceptance. Methods: This will be a literature review and review of the author’s experience as a writer and referee. Results: Where possible, the author should consider revising and resubmitting rather than sending an article elsewhere. A structured layout for responding to referees’ comments is suggested that includes the 3 golden rules: (1) respond completely; (2) respond politely; and (3) respond with evidence. Conclusion: Responding to referees’ comments requires the writer to overcome any feelings of personal attack, and to instead concentrate on addressing referees’ concerns in a courteous, objective, and evidencebased way. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:79-83.)

Feasibility study to inform the design of a UK multi-centre randomised controlled trial of prophylactic antibiotics for the prevention of recurrent cellulitis of the leg

Background: This paper describes the results of a feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Methods: Twenty-nine members of the UK Dermatology Clinical Trials Network (UK DCTN) expressed an interest in recruiting for this study. Of these, 17 obtained full ethics and Research & Development (R&D) approval, and 15 successfully recruited patients into the study. A total of 70 participants with a diagnosis of cellulitis of the leg were enrolled over a 5-month period. These participants were largely recruited from medical admissions wards, although some were identified from dermatology, orthopaedic, geriatric and general surgery wards. Data were collected on patient demographics, clinical features and willingness to take part in a future RCT. Results: Despite being a relatively common condition, cellulitis patients were difficult to locate through our network of UK DCTN clinicians. This was largely because patients were rarely seen by dermatologists, and admissions were not co-ordinated centrally. In addition, the impact of the proposed exclusion criteria was high; only 26 (37%) of those enrolled in the study fulfilled all of the inclusion criteria for the subsequent RCT, and were willing to be randomised to treatment. Of the 70 participants identified during the study as having cellulitis of the leg (as confirmed by a dermatologist), only 59 (84%) had all 3 of the defining features of: i) erythema, ii) oedema, and iii) warmth with acute pain/tenderness upon examination. Twenty-two (32%) patients experienced a previous episode of cellulitis within the last 3 years. The median time to recurrence (estimated as the time since the most recent previous attack) was 205 days (95% CI 102 to 308). Service users were generally supportive of the trial, although several expressed concerns about taking antibiotics for lengthy periods, and felt that multiple morbidity/old age would limit entry into a 3-year study. Conclusion: This pilot study has been crucial in highlighting some key issues for the conduct of a future RCT. As a result of these findings, changes have been made to i) the planned recruitment strategy, ii) the proposed inclusion criteria and ii) the definition of cellulitis for use in the future trial.

Should eye protection be worn during dermatological surgery: prospective observational study

Background There is a potential risk of infection with blood-borne viruses if a doctor receives a blood splash to a mucous membrane. The quantification of facial contamination with blood has never been documented in the context of dermatological surgery. Objectives (i) To identify the number of facial blood splashes that occur during skin surgery and to identify the procedures that present higher risks for the operator and assistant. (ii) To assess the provision of eye protection and attitudes to its use in dermatological surgery in the U.K. Methods (i) Prospective, observational study in the skin surgery suite of a U.K. teaching hospital assessing 100 consecutive dermatological surgery procedures, plus 100 consecutive operations in which an assistant was present. Primary outcome: number of face-mask visors with at least one blood splash. Secondary outcomes: to identify if any of the following variables influenced the occurrence of a blood splash: grade of operator, site and type of procedure, and the use of electrocautery. (ii) A postal survey of all U.K.-based members of the British Society of Dermatological Surgery (BSDS) was conducted assessing facilities available and the attitudes of U.K.-based clinicians to the use of face masks during surgery. Results (i) In 33% of all surgical procedures there was at least one facial splash to the operator (range 1–75) and in 15% of procedures the assistant received at least one splash (range 1–11). Use of monopolar electrocautery was significantly less likely to result in splashes to the mask compared with bipolar electrocautery [odds ratio (OR) 0Æ04; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0Æ01–0Æ19]. Compared with the head/neck, operations on the body were significantly more likely to result in splashes to the mask (OR 6Æ52) (95% CI 1Æ7–25Æ07). The type of procedure and the status of the operator did not have a bearing on the likelihood of receiving a splash to the mask. (ii) From the survey, 33 of 159 (20Æ8%) of BSDS members had no face masks available and 54 of 159 (34Æ0%) did not wear any facial protection while operating. The majority (53Æ5%) thought they received a splash in £ 1% of procedures. Conclusions There is a substantial risk of a splash of blood coming into contact with the face during dermatological surgery for both the operator and assistant, regardless of the procedure. The risk of receiving a blood splash to the face may be substantially underestimated by U.K.-based dermatologists. The use of protective eyewear is advisable at all times, but particularly when using bipolar electrocautery, or when operating on high-risk individuals.