http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5080-7019
Correction
12 Nov 2020: The PLOS ONE Staff (2020) Correction: Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review. PLOS ONE 15(11): e0242527. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0242527 View correction
Figures
Abstract
Background
Valid and reliable outcome measures are needed to determine and compare treatment results of port wine stain (PWS) studies. Besides, uniformity in outcome measures is crucial to enable inter-study comparisons and meta-analyses. This study aimed to assess the heterogeneity in reported PWS outcome measures by mapping the (clinical) outcome measures currently used in prospective PWS studies.
Methods
OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and CENTRAL were searched for prospective PWS studies published from 2005 to May 2020. Interventional studies with a clinical efficacy assessment were included. Two reviewers independently evaluated methodological quality using a modified Downs and Black checklist.
Results
In total, 85 studies comprising 3,310 patients were included in which 94 clinician/observer-reported clinical efficacy assessments had been performed using 46 different scoring systems. Eighty-one- studies employed a global assessment of PWS appearance/improvement, of which -82% was expressed as percentage improvement and categorized in 26 different scoring systems. A wide variety of other global and multi-item scoring systems was identified. As a result of outcome heterogeneity and insufficient data reporting, only 44% of studies could be directly compared. A minority of studies included patient-reported or objective outcomes. Thirteen studies of good quality were found.
Citation: van Raath MI, Chohan S, Wolkerstorfer A, van der Horst CMAM, Limpens J, Huang X, et al. (2020) Clinical outcome measures and scoring systems used in prospective studies of port wine stains: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 15(7): e0235657. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657
Editor: Ahmed Negida, Zagazig University, EGYPT
Received: March 12, 2020; Accepted: June 21, 2020; Published: July 2, 2020
Copyright: © 2020 van Raath et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.
Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Port wine stains (PWS) are congenital vascular malformations that occur in approximately 0.3–0.9% of infants [1–3]. Lesions initially present as flat, red-to-pink patches and darken and thicken with age [4]. PWS are most frequently located in the face and neck and can cause functional impairment [5], skin and soft tissue hypertrophy [5], and glaucoma [6], as well as substantial psychosocial morbidity [7–9]. Despite therapeutic developments, complete PWS resolution remains rare [10–12].
Valid, relevant, and reliable outcome measures are required to accurately gauge treatment effects and compare treatment protocols and therapeutic interventions. Moreover, standardization of outcome measures is imperative for enabling comparisons between studies. Increased awareness of the importance of (high-quality) outcome measures has led to a rise in outcome measure research, especially in dermatology [13] (in particular for psoriasis [14], atopic dermatitis [15], and more recently vitiligo [16]).
Recently we have performed an analysis of clinical outcomes in PWS trials published since 1986 [10]. This review was limited in its scope because of the large variety of clinical scoring systems. The outcome measure heterogeneity has also precluded data syntheses in previous PWS meta-analyses [17,18]. Nevertheless, few studies have devoted attention to PWS outcome measures and no study has systematically analyzed the use of PWS outcome measures. Therefore, the primary goal of this study was to systematically map and analyze the use of clinical PWS outcome measures (i.e., an observer-, clinician-, or patient-reported visual assessment of treatment efficacy) in prospective PWS studies since 2005. Additionally, the use of other outcome measures in these studies was assessed. Finally, the methodological quality of included studies was investigated using the Downs & Black risk of bias checklist. The results of this study could help to inform the future development of a standardized clinical scoring system for PWS and to improve the quality of PWS research.
Methods
This systematic review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [19]. The review protocol was registered in the international register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO; reg. no. CRD42018115343) [20].
Search strategy
A medical librarian (JL) performed a comprehensive, systematic search in OVID MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to identify prospective PWS studies from 2005 to May 4th 2020. This starting year was used to gather a sufficiently large and representative sample of current practice in clinical PWS research. The search consisted of controlled terms (i.e., MeSH terms in MEDLINE) and free-text words for PWS combined with a methodological search filter for prospective studies, including randomized controlled trials (S1 Table). The retrieved records were imported and de-duplicated in ENDNOTE X7 (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY, USA). The included studies were screened for additional relevant cited or citing references.
Study selection and data extraction
Full-text, original studies with a therapeutic intervention performed in PWS patients and with a form of clinician-, observer-, or patient-reported clinical efficacy assessment as study outcome were included. Clinical efficacy assessment was defined as a visual evaluation of appearance or improvement without the aid of an (objective) instrument. No language restrictions were applied. Studies that exclusively included patients with syndromic forms of PWS (e.g., Sturge-Weber syndrome, Klippel-Trénaunay syndrome, etc.) were excluded. We found that the outcomes in small case series (less than five PWS patients), letters, conference abstracts, short reports, and study protocols in international trial registries were, in general, described with insufficient detail. These hits were therefore excluded. Titles, abstracts, full text versions of selected studies, and reference lists of included studies were screened independently by two investigators (IvR, SC) using Rayyan [21]. In case of disagreement between the two reviewers, a third reviewer (CvdH) was consulted until consensus was reached.
Characteristics of the outcome measure, measurement instrument, scoring system, interventions, study design and population, assessors, blinding of outcome assessment, statistical analysis, follow-up duration, the reporting of results, country of the first author, and the registration of adverse events were extracted independently by two investigators (IvR, SC). Uncontrolled or non-comparative studies (essentially case series) encompassed one and the same treatment in all patients. Controlled studies employed one or more control-groups, i.e., these compared one treatment with another form of treatment and/or placebo. Different treatments could be assigned to different patients (between-patient controlled study design) or to different sites within the same patient and/or PWS (within-patient controlled design). Discrepancies between data extractors were discussed until consensus was reached.
Appraisal of study quality
To assess the methodological quality at the study level, a critical appraisal was performed independently by two authors (IvR, SC) using a modified version of the Downs and Black checklist [22–24]. This validated checklist consists of 27 questions regarding reporting, internal validity, external validity, and power and has been used for both randomized and non-randomized controlled studies. Additional details of this analysis are described in the supplement (S3 Appendix). In addition to the factors assessed in the Downs and Black checklist, we assessed a few additional aspects related to outcome assessment: 1) the number of outcome assessors; 2) their professional background; 3) whether outcomes were assessed based on photographs, and if so; 4) whether an attempt was made to standardize these photographs.
Data analysis
Outcome measures were classified according to: domain [25], assessor (clinician-, observer-, parent-, or patient-reported), qualitative vs. quantitative, relative (i.e., scoring systems with a single measurement that constitutes the difference in pre-treatment and post-treatment appearance) vs. static (i.e., scoring systems that require repeated pre- and post-treatment measurements with the same scoring tool to calculate a (change) score), and global (i.e., a single-item assessment) vs. multi-item (i.e., separate assessment of two or more PWS characteristics, such as PWS border, texture, and color) measures. The data were presented using descriptive statistics (frequencies and proportions).
Results
Study characteristics
An overview of the study selection and exclusion process is shown in the PRISMA flowchart in Fig 1. Twenty prospective studies were excluded because they did not feature a clinical outcome measure. In total, 85 studies comprising 3,310 PWS patients were included [11,26–109]. The study characteristics are presented in S2 Table and the study designs are depicted in Fig 2. The (weighted) mean age was 23.0 years and 59.7% of patients was female (S2 Table). Most studies were performed in China (N = 32) and Europe (N = 25) (S2 Table). Of the controlled studies [11,26–62,70,81,92,103,109], 30 compared two or more therapeutic interventions (e.g., PDL versus Alexandrite laser or skin cooling versus no cooling), whereas 13 studies compared treatment settings or protocols (e.g., different pulse durations, spot sizes, end points, or treatment intervals). Five studies (5.9%) were placebo-controlled. Thirty-two percent (N = 28/85) of studies was randomized (i.e., randomization of treatments to different patients or to different sites within one patient and/or PWS) [11,31,36,39,41–59,61,62,81,92,103]. Of the uncontrolled (noncomparative) studies (N = 42/75 [63–69,71–80,82–91,93–102,104–108]), 11 were performed to correlate, develop, or validate an instrument or analysis technique (such as laser speckle imaging; intended for measuring lesion characteristics, treatment effects, or efficacy), 1 study investigated different clinical assessment methods, and 1 study correlated PWS characteristics and demographic parameters with treatment results. A majority of studies (60.5%) had a minimum follow-up duration of less than 2 months (S2 Table).
In total, 85 prospective studies with a clinical outcome measure published since 2005 were included. Abbreviations: PWS, port wine stain.
Studies with a control group (controlled studies) allocated different treatments to different treatment sites within individual patients (within-patient controlled) or to different patients (between-patients controlled).
Study outcomes
An overview of all study outcomes is presented in Fig 3. Only studies with a clinical efficacy assessment were included in our analysis. PWS were assessed predominantly with relative (rather than static) measures for both patient- and clinician/observer-reported data (Fig 3). Clinician/observer-reported satisfaction was included in 2 studies (2.4%). Patient-reported outcomes were measured in 32.9% (N = 28/85) of studies, which included satisfaction, PWS improvement, and treatment preference (Section Patient-reported and parent-reported outcome measures).
Note that the secondary percentages are relative to the primary variable and that their sum can exceed 100% as single studies assessed multiple outcomes (e.g., some studies used both a relative and static measure of treatment efficacy). Abbreviations: DMV, depth measuring videomicroscopy; FS, fluorescence spectrometry; HFUS, high-frequency ultrasound; LDI, laser Doppler imaging; LSCI, laser speckle contrast imaging, NS, not specified; PWS, port wine stain; RCM, reflectance confocal microscopy.
In addition to clinical assessment, 36 studies (42.4%) used objective instruments to objectively measure treatment efficacy or quantify other factors, such as dermal blood flow reduction. Histological samples to assess photothermally-induced changes and epidermal damage were collected in 8 studies (9.4%).
Of all studies, 77.6% (N = 66/85) systematically collected data on the presence of adverse or side effects. In one study a 4-point scoring system was used to score “safety”, i.e., the occurrence and degree of hypopigmentation or hyperpigmentation and hypertrophic or atrophic scarring [75]. Another study classified the degree of crusting based on a 3-point scoring system (‘thick’, ‘thin’, or ‘none’) [32].
Observer/clinician-reported outcome measures and scoring systems
Inasmuch as several studies employed 2 forms of clinical efficacy assessment, a total of 94 observer/clinician-reported clinical efficacy assessments were performed. The scoring systems were not specified in 3 studies. In the remaining studies, 46 different scoring systems were employed (Table 1). Most studies (N = 79/85) used a relative measure as the primary outcome. For relative measures, a global assessment of PWS improvement (also referred to in studies as ‘blanching’, ‘lightening’, and ‘clearance’) was the most prevalent. In a majority of studies (N = 66/81) the global assessment was reported quantitatively as a percentage improvement and was categorized into subgroups (usually quartiles, which were supplemented by additional strata of 0% (N = 23/63) and/or 100% clearance (N = 5/63) in some studies). Alternatively, qualitative scoring systems were used that varied from 2 to 5 grades (Table 1). A multi-item assessment using relative scoring systems was used in 2 studies.
In a few studies with relative measures as the primary outcome, a secondary efficacy outcome was included in the form of another relative (and global) measure (N = 5/85) or a static measure (N = 4/85). Static measures included the Patient and Observer Scar Assessment Scale (POSAS), a 10-point scoring systems for ‘redness’ or ‘cosmetic appearance, the (decrease in) scores on a Munsell color chart, and multi-itemed assessment of skin color and texture. Two studies also utilized dermoscopy-derived outcomes (using an unspecified scale or the intraoperative observation of vascular rupture; not included in the analyses).
Although most studies used a classification based on percentage improvement, the differences in the number of subgroups and subgroup ranges (shown in Fig 4) complicated study comparison. Numerous studies also used inconsistent and contradictory (mathematical) statements to describe subgroups. In total, 26 different scoring systems based on percentage blanching (or percentage ‘improvement’, ‘lightening’, or ‘clearance’) were identified in 65 studies. The data of a maximum of 57.4% of efficacy assessments (N = 54/94) could theoretically be converted into one common, simplified classification of quartile percentages (i.e., 0–25%, 26–50%, 51–75%, and 76–100%). However, many studies failed to report the scores of each category or only reported mean scores for the entire cohort, which precluded actual pooling of the data. Consequently, the data of maximal 43.5% of studies (N = 37/85) could be pooled into one uniform scoring system.
The percentage-based scoring systems in Table 1 were stratified according to their categories.
Observer/clinician-reported satisfaction was included as a secondary outcome in two studies (using a 0–4 scoring system or an ‘ineffective, ‘moderate’, ‘good’, or ‘excellent’ score).
Patient-reported and parent-reported outcome measures
Satisfaction with treatment (N = 14/85) was the most commonly included patient-reported outcome and was measured using 1 of 9 different scoring systems (Fig 3 and Table 2). Patient or parent-reported PWS improvement was included in 13 studies (15.3%) using 1 of 11 different scoring systems (similar to scoring systems used for clinician/observer-reported assessment). Ten studies assessed patient-reported pain. Patient-preferred treatment (for patients that underwent 2 or more forms of treatment) was included in 6% of within-patients controlled studies (N = 2/36). No studies measured quality of life or measures of functioning.
Objective measures using optical instruments and digital image analysis
Non-invasive, objective assessment using optical instruments or digital image analysis techniques was used in 42.4% of studies (N = 36/85). The techniques employed were colorimetry (N = 12/85), reflectance spectrophotometry (N = 10/85), digital image analysis (N = 5/85), laser speckle contrast imaging (N = 4/85), fluorescence spectrometry (N = 2/85), depth measuring videomicroscopy (N = 3/85), laser Doppler imaging (N = 1/85), high-frequency ultrasound (N = 1/85), and reflectance confocal microscopy (N = 2/85). The outcomes obtained with these instruments are listed in Table 3.
Methodological quality of prospective PWS studies
The mean (± SD) Downs and Black risk of bias checklist score was 15.3 ± 4.0 (18.0 ± 3.3 for controlled and 12.4 ± 2.4 for uncontrolled studies; S1 Checklist). Studies were of good (N = 13), fair (N = 31), and poor (N = 41) quality. No excellent studies were found. The mean score per item for controlled and uncontrolled studies is presented in Fig 5. The items related to ‘external validity’ were scored particularly poor. In controlled studies, the items 9, 11–14, 24, 26, 27 were not satisfied most frequently. In uncontrolled studies most points were lost in items 7, 9, 11–13, and 26. In the studies of good quality a ‘percentage improvement’ scale was most frequently used as the primary outcome (92.3%, N = 12/13). Fig 6 shows the annual number and quality of published PWS trials, which suggests a small positive trend in good quality studies.
Item numbers are indicated within the outer ring. For uncontrolled studies, items 14, 15, 21–25, and 27 were considered irrelevant and were therefore omitted. All scores are normalized to 1 inasmuch as one item (#5) has a maximum score of 2 instead of 1.
The stacked columns show the absolute annual number of published studies stratified by Downs and Black checklist scores. The year 2020 (N = 1 ‘good’ quality study) was omitted because it is incomplete. No studies of ‘excellent’ quality were found.
In most studies primary clinical efficacy assessment was performed by multiple evaluators (N = 52/85; 61.2%). Evaluation was reportedly performed in a blinded manner in 54.1% (N = 46/85) of all studies and 69.4% (N = 34/49) of controlled studies. The professional background and distribution of the evaluator(s) that performed clinical efficacy assessment is shown in Fig 7. In 41.2% of studies (N = 35/85) a dermatologist or plastic surgeon was involved. In 29.4% (N = 25/85) of studies the professional background was not reported. Of all studies, 87.1% (N = 74/85) reported the use of photographs to assess treatment efficacy. These were reported to be taken under standardized conditions in 54.1% (N = 40/74).
Three studies used a panel of evaluators with different professional backgrounds (compositions were: a physician and a dermatologist; a plastic surgeon and a dermatologist, and a plastic surgeon, medical student, and investigator). Studies with ‘experts’ did not specify the experts’ background. Abbreviations: NL, not listed.
Discussion
Our systematic analysis revealed considerable heterogeneity in clinical outcome measures and scoring systems in prospective PWS studies. Most studies used a global (observer/clinician-reported) efficacy assessment with percentage improvement as primary outcome measure. Due to the variations in scoring systems and score conversions (e.g., reporting only the mean improvement for the entire patient cohort), only 44% of studies (N = 37) had a clinical outcome that could be included in one common, simplified scoring system to enable inter-study comparative analysis. Other scoring systems included multi-item assessment of PWS and the difference in repeated pre- and post-treatment appearance scores. Almost half of all studies based treatment efficacy outcomes, additionally, on an objective measurement, such as colorimetry. Nevertheless, even in these studies there is a gamut of differential outcome measures. Patient-reported outcomes were included in a minority of studies and included pain, PWS improvement, and satisfaction.
In the past two decades, good outcome measures for clinical studies, i.e., those that are valid, consistent, accurate, reproducible, and error-free, have increasingly been recognized as essential elements for evidence-based clinical decision making. As a result, study end-points have come under increasing scrutiny [111]. Concurrently, efforts have been made to standardize trial outcomes and thereby enable meta-analysis and other forms of data pooling, e.g., by developing an agreed minimum set of outcomes known as a ‘core outcome set’ (facilitated by the ‘Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) Initiative [112]) and, in dermatology, the establishment of the International Dermatology Outcome Measures (IDEOM) initiative [113,114] and the Cochrane Skin Group—Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN) [115]. By mapping the outcome measures currently in use, this review could aid in the development of a core outcome set for PWS.
In 1992, Pickering et al. reviewed the assessment methods used to assess the response of PWS to laser treatment and found substantial variability [116]. The authors pointed to the subjective nature of visual assessment and advocated the use of noninvasive optical instruments, such as colorimetry, reflectance spectrophotometry, and Doppler flowmetry to objectively quantify PWS improvement. This has since been reiterated several times by others [117–120]. Meanwhile, the objective scoring methods have been expanded and now include digital image analysis [90,118,121], reflectance confocal microscopy [122], optical coherence tomography [123,124], depth measurement videomicroscopy [125], laser speckle contrast imaging [63,126], and spatial frequency domain imaging [127]. Interestingly, these tools do not always correlate with visual assessment [81,128], underscoring potential flaws in subjective assessment tools. On the other hand, the final goal of treating PWS is to improve visibility and noticeability rather than change objective measures, such as dermal blood volume or blood flow, so this should be reflected in study outcomes. Moreover, most of these (optical) instruments are costly and not clinically available. In an altogether different approach, Lanigan proposed to use differences in pre- and post-treatment patient morbidity or satisfaction as study outcomes [129], which closely aligns with the increasing recognition of the importance of patient-reported outcomes [130]. In our sample, patient-reported outcomes were included in only 32.9% of studies, none of which involved measures of quality of life or functioning. The objective assessment versus patient-based subjective approach raises an important question as to what is most important clinically: the actual degree of PWS blanching or the patients’ perception of therapeutic efficacy (or perhaps even patients-perceived PWS-related life-impact). Regardless of the abovementioned objective assessment methods, (subjective) clinical efficacy assessment remains the most popular approach in prospective PWS studies as evidenced by the results of our systematic analysis (i.e., our study was limited to studies with a clinical assessment but only 20 studies were excluded for not complying with this criterion). Despite past efforts to standardize PWS study outcome measures, clinical scoring systems have remained highly variable.
Our review also showed that the quality of prospective PWS studies is generally poor inasmuch as no excellent and only thirteen good quality studies were found. Low Downs and Black scores was mostly attributable to incomplete disclosure of the patient recruitment process and patients lost to follow up, the randomization process, and the lack of patient blinding. It is likely that scores have been influenced to some extent by poor reporting (rather than poor study practice and design), which could be aggravated by the word limits imposed by dermatological journals. Also, the scores for uncontrolled studies are curbed to some extent due to the inclusion of studies without the primary goal to evaluate intervention effect (N = 12/42, section Study Characteristics).
Our systematic analysis was limited to prospective studies. However, there are no indications that retrospective studies perform any better in terms of outcome homogeneity. Another limitation is the fact that only studies with a clinical assessment were included. This means that some outcomes, particularly technical outcomes, may have been missed. The authors considered the assessment period of over 15 years sufficiently representative of current practice.
Consensus on the best outcome measures for PWS studies is lacking, which makes it impossible to compare trial results and perform meta-analyses. The absence of a standardized scoring system and paucity of high-quality PWS studies consequently limit (the quality of) the evidence available to clinicians to optimize treatment. As such this problem may have contributed to the lacking improvement in treatment outcomes over the last three decades [10]. Thus, the PWS field would benefit from a single, simple, and easy-to-use clinical assessment protocol, which can preferably be applied both in clinical trials and clinical practice. Inasmuch as it is currently unclear what clinical outcome measure is superior in regard to its measurement properties (i.e., validity, reliability, and responsiveness), we are currently performing a systematic review on the measurement properties of PWS outcome measures. Ideally, a future Delphi study would be organized among a large and relevant international group of stakeholders (including patients and healthcare professionals) to achieve consensus on what outcome constructs should be measured and reported in all PWS treatment research and, subsequently, which instruments should be used to measure these outcomes. If needed, new outcome instruments should be developed, including patient-reported outcomes. Accordingly, another essential part of the process of establishing such a core outcome set is the evaluation of the measurement properties of selected, previously established outcome instruments. Pending these developments, we advise PWS studies to (at least) include a physician-reported score of PWS percentage improvement compatible with quartiles (i.e., the most prevalent scoring system at the top in Fig 4) until consensus on this topic is reached and to report the frequency of each individual outcome category.
The methodological quality of prospective PWS studies could be further improved by consistent implementation of blinded, independent, and experienced evaluators, ensuring sufficient follow-up time, and treatment randomization with inclusion of control groups (e.g., a split-face study design). Moreover, it is imperative that photographs used for clinical assessment are taken under standardized conditions (i.e., using identical camera settings, patient positioning, and lighting). Because of the considerable effects on erythema patients should also be comfortable and stay sufficiently long (e.g., > 30 minutes) in a temperature-controlled room in order to achieve equilibrium conditions before photographs or other measurements are taken. Study quality would also benefit from systematic collection of data on adverse effects and inclusion of (validated) patient-reported outcomes.
Conclusions
Outcome measures used in prospective PWS studies are highly heterogeneous, making studies incomparable and hampering evidence-based clinical decision making. The results of this systematic analysis underscore the need for reliable, consensus-based, standardized outcome measures.
Supporting information
S1 Table. Searches performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657.s001
(DOCX)
S2 Table. Characteristics of the included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657.s002
(DOCX)
S1 Appendix. Modified Downs and Black checklist for assessment of methodological quality.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657.s003
(DOCX)
S2 Appendix. Modified Downs and Black checklist scores per study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657.s004
(XLSX)
S3 Appendix. Extracted data for all included studies.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0235657.s005
(XLSX)
References
- 1. Jacobs AH, Walton RG. The incidence of birth marks in the neonate. Pediatrics. 1976;58: 218–22. pmid:951136
- 2. Rivers JK, Frederiksen PC, Dibdin C. A prevalence survey of dermatoses in the Australian neonate. J Am Acad Dermatol. 1990;23: 77–81. pmid:2365880
- 3. Techasatian L, Sanaphay V, Paopongsawan P, Schachner LA. Neonatal Birthmarks: A Prospective Survey in 1000 Neonates. Glob Pediatr Heal. 2019;6: 2333794X1983566. pmid:30956996
- 4. van Drooge AM, Beek JF, van der Veen JP, van der Horst CM, Wolkerstorfer A. Hypertrophy in port-wine stains: Prevalence and patient characteristics in a large patient cohort. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2012;67: 1214–1219. pmid:22749320
- 5. Lee JW, Chung HY, Cerrati EW, Teresa MO, Waner M. The Natural History of Soft Tissue Hypertrophy, Bony Hypertrophy, and Nodule Formation in Patients with Untreated Head and Neck Capillary Malformations. Dermatologic Surg. 2015;41: 1241–1245. pmid:26506066
- 6. Bayoumi NHL, Elsayed EN. Glaucoma in children with facial port wine stain. Eur J Ophthalmol. 2020;30: 168–174. pmid:30563364
- 7. Mills CM, Lanigan SW, Hughes J, Anstey AV. Demographic study of port wine stain patients attending a laser clinic: family history, prevalence of naevus anaemicus and results of prior treatment. Clin Exp Dermatol. 1997;22: 166–8. pmid:9499604
- 8. Hagen SL, Grey KR, Korta DZ, Kelly KM. Quality of life in adults with facial port-wine stains. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76: 695–702. pmid:27955934
- 9. van der Horst CM, de Borgie CS, Knopper JL, Bossuyt PM. Psychosocial adjustment of children and adults with port wine stains. Br J Plast Surg. 1997;50: 463–467. pmid:9326151
- 10. van Raath MI, Chohan S, Wolkerstorfer A, van der Horst CM, Storm G, Heger M. Port wine stain treatment outcomes have not improved over the past three decades. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2019;33: 1369–1377. pmid:30908756
- 11. Gao K, Huang Z, Yuan K-H, Zhang B, Hu Z-Q. Side-by-side comparison of photodynamic therapy and pulsed-dye laser treatment of port-wine stain birthmarks. Br J Dermatol. 2013;168: 1040–1046. pmid:23137063
- 12. van Raath MI, van Amesfoort JE, Hermann M, Ince Y, Zwart M, Echague A, et al. Site-specific pharmaco-laser therapy: a novel treatment modality for refractory port wine stains. J Clin Transl Res. 2019;5.
- 13. Prinsen CAC, Spuls PI, Kottner J, Thomas KS, Apfelbacher C, Chalmers JR, et al. Navigating the landscape of core outcome set development in dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;81: 297–305. pmid:30878565
- 14. Merola JF, Armstrong AW, Saraiya A, Latella J, Garg A, Duffin C, et al. International Dermatology Outcome Measures Initiative as Applied to Psoriatic Disease Outcomes: An Update. J Rheumatol. 2016;43: 959–960. pmid:27134269
- 15. Schmitt J, Langan S, Deckert S, Svensson A, von Kobyletzki L, Thomas K, et al. Assessment of clinical signs of atopic dermatitis: A systematic review and recommendation. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2013;132: 1337–1347. pmid:24035157
- 16. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Tunis S, Clarke M. The COMET Initiative database: progress and activities update (2015). Trials. 2017;18: 54. pmid:28159003
- 17. Leducq S, Giraudeau B, Tavernier E, Maruani A. Topical use of mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors in dermatology: A systematic review with meta-analysis. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2019;80: 735–742. pmid:30744877
- 18. Faurschou A, Olesen AB, Gotzsche PC, Haedersdal M. Lasers or light sources for port-wine stains. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. pmid:22071834
- 19. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8: 336–341. pmid:20171303
- 20.
van Raath MI, Chohan S, Wolkerstorfer A, van der Horst CM, Limpens J, Heger M. A systematic review of clinical outcome measures used in prospective studies of port wine stains. In: PROSPERO [Internet]. 2018. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018115343
- 21. Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016;5: 210. pmid:27919275
- 22. Da Cunha Nascimento D, Petriz B, Da Cunha Oliveira S, Vieira DCL, Funghetto SS, Silva AO, et al. Effects of blood flow restriction exercise on hemostasis: A systematic review of randomized and non-randomized trials. Int J Gen Med. 2019;12: 91–100. pmid:30863135
- 23. Hooper P, Jutai JW, Strong G, Russell-Minda E. Age-related macular degeneration and low-vision rehabilitation: A systematic review. Can J Ophthalmol. 2008;43: 180–187. pmid:18347620
- 24. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52: 377–84. pmid:9764259
- 25. Dodd S, Clarke M, Becker L, Mavergames C, Fish R, Williamson PR. A taxonomy has been developed for outcomes in medical research to help improve knowledge discovery. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96: 84–92. pmid:29288712
- 26. Yu W, Ma G, Qiu Y, Chen H, Jin Y, Yang X, et al. Prospective comparison treatment of 595-nm pulsed-dye lasers for virgin port-wine stain. Br J Dermatol. 2015;172: 684–691. pmid:25130205
- 27. Kautz G, Kautz I, Segal J, Zehren S. Treatment of resistant port wine stains (PWS) with pulsed dye laser and non-contact vacuum: a pilot study. Lasers Med Sci. 2010;25: 525–529. pmid:20013138
- 28. Frohm NM, Passian S, Wiegleb ED. Comparison of two dye lasers in the treatment of port-wine stains. Clin Exp Dermatology. 2010;35: 126–130.
- 29. Babilas P, Schreml S, Eames T, Hohenleutner U, Szeimies R-MM, Landthaler M. Split-face comparison of intense pulsed light with short- and long-pulsed dye lasers for the treatment of port-wine stains. Lasers Surg Med. 2010;42: 720–727. pmid:20886506
- 30. Tournas JA, Lai J, Truitt A, Huang YC, Osann KE, Choi B, et al. Combined benzoporphyrin derivative monoacid ring photodynamic therapy and pulsed dye laser for port wine stain birthmarks. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2009;6: 195–199. pmid:19932451
- 31. Faurschou A, Togsverd-Bo K, Zachariae C, Haedersdal M. Pulsed dye laser vs. intense pulsed light for port-wine stains: a randomized side-by-side trial with blinded response evaluation. Br J Dermatol. 2009;160: 359–364. pmid:19120324
- 32. Huang N, Cheng G, Li X, Gu Y, Liu F, Zhong Q, et al. Influence of drug-light-interval on photodynamic therapy of port wine stains-Simulation and validation of mathematic models. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2008;5: 120–126. pmid:19356642
- 33. Hammes S, Roos S, Raulin C, Ockenfels HM, Greve B. Does dye laser treatment with higher fluences in combination with cold air cooling improve the results of port-wine stains? J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2007;21: 1229–1233.
- 34. Sivarajan V, Maclaren WM, Mackay IR. The effect of varying pulse duration, wavelength, spot size, and fluence on the response of previously treated capillary vascular malformations to pulsed-dye laser treatment. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;57: 25–32. pmid:16799304
- 35. Tomson N, Lim SP, Abdullah A, Lanigan SW. The treatment of port-wine stains with the pulsed-dye laser at 2-week and 6-week intervals: a comparative study. Br J Dermatol. 2006;154: 676–679. pmid:16536811
- 36. Yang MU, Yaroslavsky AN, Farinelli WA, Flotte TJ, Rius-Diaz F, Tsao SS, et al. Long-pulsed neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser treatment for port-wine stains. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005;52: 480–490. pmid:15761427
- 37. Ren J, Qian H, Xiang L, Pan Z, Zhong L, Yan S, et al. The assessment of pulsed dye laser treatment of port-wine stains with reflectance confocal microscopy. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2014;16: 21–25. pmid:24215420
- 38. Yung A, Sheehan-Dare R. A comparative study of a 595-nm with a 585-nm pulsed dye laser in refractory port wine stains. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153: 601–606. pmid:16120150
- 39. Evans AV, Robson A, Barlow RJ, Kurwa HA. Treatment of port wine stains with photodynamic therapy, using pulsed dye laser as a light source, compared with pulsed dye laser alone: a pilot study. Lasers Surg Med. 2005;36: 266–269. pmid:15786480
- 40. Reynolds N, Exley J, Hills S, Falder S, Duff C, Kenealy J. The role of the Lumina intense pulsed light system in the treatment of port wine stains—a case controlled study. Br J Plast Surg. 2005;58: 968–980. pmid:16043156
- 41. Swan BC, Robertson SJ, Tuxen A, Ma E, Yip L, Ly L, et al. Pulsed dye laser treatment of capillary malformations in infants at 2-weekly versus 3-monthly intervals, reducing the need for general anaesthesia. Australas J Dermatol. 2017;58: 214–218. pmid:26914597
- 42. Al-Dhalimi MA, Al-Janabi MH. Split lesion randomized comparative study between long pulsed Nd:YAG laser 532 and 1,064 nm in treatment of facial port-wine stain. Lasers Surg Med. 2016;48: 852–858. pmid:27669109
- 43. Zhao Y, Tu P, Zhou G, Zhou Z, Lin X, Yang H, et al. Hemoporfin photodynamic therapy for port-wine stain: A randomized controlled trial. PLoS One. 2016;11: 1–19. pmid:27227544
- 44. Bae Y-SC, Alabdulrazzaq H, Brauer JA, Geronemus RG. Treatment of recalcitrant port-wine stains (PWS) using a combined pulsed dye laser (PDL) and radiofrequency (RF) energy device. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017;76: 321–326. pmid:28088993
- 45. Carlsen BC, Wenande E, Erlendsson AM, Faurschou A, Dierickx C, Haedersdal M. A randomized side-by-side study comparing alexandrite laser at different pulse durations for port wine stains. Lasers Surg Med. 2017;49: 97–103. pmid:27121176
- 46. Greveling K, Prens EP, van Doorn MB. Treatment of port wine stains using Pulsed Dye Laser, Erbium YAG Laser, and topical rapamycin (sirolimus)-A randomized controlled trial. Lasers Surg Med. 2016; 1–6. pmid:27019392
- 47. Tang Y, Xie H, Li J, Jian D. The association between treatment reactions and treatment efficiency of Hemoporfin-photodynamic therapy on port wine stains: A prospective double blind randomized controlled trial. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2017;18: 171–178. pmid:28216012
- 48. Passeron T, Maza A, Fontas E, Toubel G, Vabres P, Livideanu C, et al. Treatment of port wine stains with pulsed dye laser and topical timolol: a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2014;170: 1350–1353. pmid:24641096
- 49. Tu H, Li Y, Xie H, Xiong J, Wang B, Xu X, et al. A Split-Face Study of Dual-Wavelength Laser on Neck and Facial Port-Wine Stains in Chinese Patients. J Drugs Dermatol. 2015;14: 1336–40. pmid:26580884
- 50. Yu W, Ying H, Chen Y, Qiu Y, Chen H, Jin Y, et al. In Vivo Investigation of the Safety and Efficacy of Pulsed Dye Laser with Two Spot Sizes in Port-Wine Stain Treatment: A Prospective Side-by-Side Comparison. Photomed Laser Surg. 2017;35: 465–471. pmid:28650740
- 51. Brauer JA, Farhadian JA, Bernstein LJ, Bae YS, Geronemus RG. Pulsed dye laser at subpurpuric settings for the treatment of pulsed dye laser-induced ecchymoses in patients with port-wine stains. Dermatologic Surg. 2018;44: 220–226. pmid:28858925
- 52. Wang T, Chen D, Yang J, Ma G, Yu W, Lin X. Safety and efficacy of dual-wavelength laser (1064 + 595 nm) for treatment of non-treated port-wine stains. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol. 2018;32: 260–264. pmid:28750153
- 53. Wu Q, Tu P, Zhou G, Yang H, Zhou Z, Zhao Y, et al. A dose-finding study for hemoporfin in photodynamic therapy for port-wine stain: A multicenter randomized double-blind phase IIb trial. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2018;34: 314–321. pmid:29533491
- 54. Yu W, Wang T, Zhu J, Qiu Y, Chen H, Jin Y, et al. EMLA cream does not influence efficacy and pain reduction during pulsed-dye laser treatment of port-wine stain: a prospective side-by-side comparison. Lasers Med Sci. 2018;33: 573–579. pmid:29247433
- 55. Yu W, Zhu J, Changc S-J, Chen H, Jin Y, Yang X, et al. Shorter Treatment Intervals of East Asians with Port-Wine Stain with Pulsed Dye Laser Are Safe and Effective—A Prospective Side-by-Side Comparison. Photomed Laser Surg. 2018;36: 37–43. pmid:28994643
- 56. Yu W, Zhu J, Wang L, Qiu Y, Chen Y, Yang X, et al. Double Pass 595 nm Pulsed Dye Laser Does Not Enhance the Efficacy of Port Wine Stains Compared with Single Pass: A Randomized Comparison with Histological Examination. Photomed Laser Surg. 2018;36.
- 57. Zhu J, Yu W, Wang T, Chen Y, Lyu D, Chang L, et al. Less is more: similar efficacy in three sessions and seven sessions of pulsed dye laser treatment in infantile port-wine stain patients. Lasers Med Sci. 2018;33: 1707–1715. pmid:29744754
- 58. Lanigan S. Reduction of pain in the treatment of vascular lesions with a pulsed dye laser and pneumatic skin flattening. Lasers Med Sci. 2009;24: 617–620. pmid:19050824
- 59. Wang Y, Zuo Z, Liao X, Gu Y, Qiu H, Zeng J. Investigation of photodynamic therapy optimization for port wine stain using modulation of photosensitizer administration methods. Exp Biol Med. 2013;238: 1344–9. pmid:24157585
- 60. McGill DJ, MacLaren W, Mackay IR. A direct comparison of pulsed dye, alexandrite, KTP and Nd:YAG lasers and IPL in patients with previously treated capillary malformations. Lasers Surg Med. 2008;40: 390–398. pmid:18649379
- 61. Abdul Latif AA, Abdel-Hameed AKS, Salama OAAM. Immediate post-irradiation dermoscopic vascular changes versus purpura as a therapeutic endpoint in pulsed-dye laser treatment of port wine stains. Dermatol Ther. 2019;32: 1–6. pmid:31580005
- 62. Horbach SER, Wolkerstorfer A, Jolink F, Bloemen PR, van der Horst CMAM. Electrosclerotherapy as a Novel Treatment Option for Hypertrophic Capillary Malformations: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial. Dermatologic Surg. 2020;46: 491–498. pmid:31574025
- 63. Yang B, Yang O, Guzman J, Nguyen P, Crouzet C, Osann KE, et al. Intraoperative, real-time monitoring of blood flow dynamics associated with laser surgery of port wine stain birthmarks. Lasers Surg Med. 2015;47: 469–475. pmid:26040983
- 64. Wang X, Tian C, Duan X, Gu Y, Huang N. A Medical Manipulator System with Lasers in Photodynamic Therapy of Port Wine Stains. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014: 1–10. pmid:25302297
- 65. Bencini PL, Cazzaniga S, Galimberti MG, Zane C, Naldi L. Variables affecting clinical response to treatment of facial port-wine stains by flash lamp-pumped pulsed dye laser: The importance of looking beyond the skin. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29: 1365–1370. pmid:24487956
- 66. Ren J, Li P, Zhao H, Chen D, Zhen J, Wang YY, et al. Assessment of tissue perfusion changes in port wine stains after vascular targeted photodynamic therapy: a short-term follow-up study. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29: 781–788. pmid:23975603
- 67. Halachmi S, Azaria R, Inbar R, Ad-El D, Lapidoth M. Use of reflectance spectrophotometry to predict the response of port wine stains to pulsed dye laser. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29: 225–230. pmid:23609559
- 68. Wang B, Wu Y, Zhu X, Xu XG, Xu TH, Chen HD, et al. Treatment of neck port-wine stain with intense pulsed light in Chinese population. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2013;15: 85–90. pmid:23464706
- 69. Liu S, Yang C, Yang S. Long-pulsed 1,064-nm high-energy dye laser improves resistant port wine stains: 20 report cases. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27: 1225–1227. pmid:22552924
- 70. Reddy KK, Brauer JA, Idriss MH, Anolik R, Bernstein L, Brightman L, et al. Treatment of port-wine stains with a short pulse width 532-nm Nd:YAG laser. J Drugs Dermatology. 2013;12: 66–71.
- 71. Liu S, Yang C, Yang S, Wang Z, Luo D, Zhang X. Topical application of 5-aminolevulinic acid followed by 595-nm pulsed dye laser irradiation for the treatment of recalcitrant port-wine stains: a primary study. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2012;14: 189–192. pmid:22658236
- 72. Wang XT, Duan XG, Huang Q, Bian GB, Zhao HH, Huang NY, et al. Development and clinical evaluation of medical robot assisted photodynamic therapy of port wine stains. Int J Med Robot Comput Assist Surg. 2011;7: 107–117.
- 73. Tierney EP, Hanke CW. Alexandrite laser for the treatment of port wine stains refractory to pulsed dye laser. Dermatologic Surg. 2011;37: 1268–1278.
- 74. Lu YG, Wu JJ, Yang YD, Yang HZ, He Y. Photodynamic therapy of port-wine stains. J Dermatolog Treat. 2010;21: 240–244. pmid:19722122
- 75. Dong X, Yu Q, Ding J, Lin J. Treatment of facial port-wine stains with a new intense pulsed light source in Chinese patients. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2010;12: 183–187. pmid:20635848
- 76. Civas E, Koc E, Aksoy B, Aksoy HM. Clinical experience in the treatment of different vascular lesions using a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser. Dermatologic Surg. 2009;35: 1933–1941.
- 77. Alster TS, Tanzi EL. Combined 595-nm and 1,064-nm laser irradiation of recalcitrant and hypertrophic port-wine stains in children and adults. Dermatologic Surg. 2009;35: 914–918.
- 78. Adatto MA, Luc-Levy J, Mordon S. Efficacy of a novel intense pulsed light system for the treatment of port wine stains. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2010;12: 54–60. pmid:20331340
- 79. Kono T, Frederick GW, Chan HH, Sakurai H, Yamaki T. Long-pulsed neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser treatment for hypertrophic port-wine stains on the lips. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2009;11: 11–13. pmid:18830868
- 80. Naran S, Gilmore J, Deleyiannis FW. The assessment of port wine stains in children following multiple pulsed-dye laser treatments. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;60: 426–430. pmid:18362573
- 81. Klein A, Baumler W, Buschmann M, Landthaler M, Babilas P. A randomized controlled trial to optimize indocyanine green-augmented diode laser therapy of capillary malformations. Lasers Surg Med. 2013;45: 216–224. pmid:23619901
- 82. Kono T, Sakurai H, Takeuchi M, Yamaki T, Soejima K, Groff WF, et al. Treatment of resistant port-wine stains with a variable-pulse pulsed dye laser. Dermatologic Surg. 2007;33: 951–956.
- 83. Farid-ur-Rehman RT, Hussain I, Haroon TS. Efficacy and safety of quasi-continuous, frequency-doubled Nd:YAG (532nm) laser therapy of port-wine stains. J Pakistan Assoc Dermatologists. 2007;17: 159–165.
- 84. Sharma VK, Khandpur S. Efficacy of pulsed dye laser in facial port-wine stains in Indian patients. Dermatologic Surg. 2007;33: 560–566.
- 85. Asahina A, Watanabe T, Kishi A, Hattori N, Shirai A, Kagami S, et al. Evaluation of the treatment of port-wine stains with the 595-nm long pulsed dye laser: a large prospective study in adult Japanese patients. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2006;54: 487–493. pmid:16488301
- 86. Pençe B, Aybey B, Ergenekon G, Pence B, Aybey B, Ergenekon G. Outcomes of 532 nm frequency-doubled Nd:YAG laser use in the treatment of port-wine stains. Dermatologic Surg. 2005;31: 509–517.
- 87. Grillo E, González-Muñoz P, Boixeda P, Cuevas A, Vañó S, Jaén P. Alexandrite Laser for the Treatment of Resistant and Hypertrophic Port Wine Stains: A Clinical, Histological and Histochemical Study. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2016;107: 591–596. pmid:27436799
- 88. Bencini PL, Tourlaki A, Tretti Clementoni M, Naldi L, Galimberti M. Double phase treatment with flashlamp-pumped pulsed-dye laser and long pulsed Nd:YAG laser for resistant port wine stains in adults. Preliminary reports. G Ital di dermatologia e Venereol. 2016;151: 281–6.
- 89. Chen D, Ren J, Wang Y, Li B, Gu Y. Intraoperative monitoring of blood perfusion in port wine stains by laser Doppler imaging during vascular targeted photodynamic therapy: A preliminary study. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2016;14: 142–151. pmid:27068654
- 90. Al-janabi MH, Ismaeel Ali NT, Mohamed Al-Sabti KD, Al-Dhalimi MA, Abdul Wahid SN. A new imaging technique for assessment of the effectiveness of long pulse Nd:YAG 532 nm laser in treatment of facial port wine stain. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2017;19: 418–421. pmid:28657379
- 91. Li-qiang G, Hua W, Si-li N, Chun-hua T. A clinical study of HMME-PDT therapy in Chinese pediatric patients with port-wine stain. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2018;23: 102–105. pmid:29885812
- 92. Peters MA, van Drooge AM, Wolkerstorfer A, van Gemert MJ, van der Veen JP, Bos JD, et al. Double pass 595 nm pulsed dye laser at a 6 minute interval for the treatment of port-wine stains is not more effective than single pass. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44: 199–204. pmid:22362420
- 93. Bernstein EF. High-energy 595 nm pulsed dye laser improves refractory port-wine stains. Dermatologic Surg. 2006;32: 26–33.
- 94. Kelly KM, Choi B, McFarlane S, Motosue A, Jung B, Khan MH, et al. Description and analysis of treatments for port-wine stain birthmarks. Arch Facial Plast Surg. 2005;7: 287–294. pmid:16172335
- 95. Zhang Y, Zou X, Chen H, Yang Y, Lin H, Guo X. Clinical study on clinical operation and post-treatment reactions of HMME-PDT in treatment of PWS. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2017;20: 253–256. pmid:29079350
- 96. Latkowski IT, Wysocki MS, Siewiera IP. [Own clinical experience in treatment of port-wine stain with KTP 532 nm laser]. Wiad Lek. 2005;58: 391–6. pmid:16425790
- 97. Wen L, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Liu X, Wang P, Shen S, et al. Application of different noninvasive diagnostic techniques used in HMME-PDT in the treatment of port wine stains. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2019;25: 369–375. pmid:30625397
- 98. Zhang Y, Yang Y, Zhang Z, Yang Y, Qiu M, Chen H, et al. Clinical study on hemoporfin PDT for infant facial port-wine stains. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2019;25: 106–110. pmid:30465892
- 99. Mohamed EEM, Mohamed Tawfik KM, Hassan Ahmad W. Successful treatment of facial vascular skin diseases with a 577-nm pro-yellow laser. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2019;18: 1675–1679. pmid:31033204
- 100. Fu Z, Huang J, Xiang Y, Huang J, Tang Z, Chen J, et al. Characterization of Laser‐Resistant Port Wine Stain Blood Vessels Using In Vivo Reflectance Confocal Microscopy. Lasers Surg Med. 2019;51: 841–849. pmid:31310339
- 101. Sadeghinia A, Moghaddas S, Tavakolpour S, Teimourpour A, Danespazhooh M, Mahmoudi H. Treatment of port wine stains with 595-nm pulsed dye laser in 27 pediatric patients: A prospective study in the Iranian population. J Cosmet Laser Ther. 2019;21: 373–377. pmid:31524027
- 102. Özdemir M, Engin B, Mevlitoglu I. Treatment of facial port-wine stains with intense pulsed light: a prospective study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2008;7: 127–131. pmid:18482016
- 103. Klein A, Baumler W, Babilas P, Szeimies RM, Baumler W, Zeman F, et al. Indocyanine green-augmented diode laser treatment of port-wine stains: clinical and histological evidence for a new treatment option from a randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol. 2012;167: 333–342. pmid:22435991
- 104. Piccolo D, Di Marcantonio D, Crisman G, Cannarozzo G, Sannino M, Chiricozzi A, et al. Unconventional Use of Intense Pulsed Light. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014.
- 105. Wang Y, Gu Y, Liao X, Chen R, Ding H. Fluorescence monitoring of a photosensitizer and prediction of the therapeutic effect of photodynamic therapy for port wine stains. Exp Biol Med. 2010;235: 175–180.
- 106. Shirakawa M, Ozawa T, Wakami S, Ishii M, Harada T. Utility of dermoscopy before and after laser irradiation in port wine stains. Ann Dermatol. 2012;24: 7–10. pmid:22363148
- 107. Sivarajan V, Mackay IR. Noninvasive in vivo assessment of vessel characteristics in capillary vascular malformations exposed to five pulsed dye laser treatments. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2005;115: 1245–1252. pmid:15809581
- 108. Bernstein EF, Brown DB. Efficacy of the 1.5 millisecond pulse-duration, 585 nm, pulsed-dye laser for treating port-wine stains. Lasers Surg Med. 2005;36: 341–346. pmid:15898098
- 109. Zhao Y, Zhou Z, Zhou G, Tu P, Zheng Q, Tao J, et al. Efficacy and safety of hemoporfin in photodynamic therapy for port-wine stain: a multicenter and open-labeled phase IIa study. Photodermatol Photoimmunol Photomed. 2011;27: 17–23. pmid:21198878
- 110. Robertson AR. The CIE 1976 Color-Difference Formulae. Color Res Appl. 1977;2: 7–11.
- 111. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19: 539–549. pmid:20169472
- 112. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Bagley H, Barnes KL, Blazeby JM, Brookes ST, et al. The COMET Handbook: Version 1.0. Trials. 2017;18: 1–50. pmid:28049491
- 113. Kirkham JJ, Gargon E, Clarke M, Williamson PR. Can a core outcome set improve the quality of systematic reviews?–a survey of the Co-ordinating Editors of Cochrane review groups. Trials. 2013;14: 1–5. pmid:23286245
- 114. Gottlieb AB, Levin AA, Armstrong AW, Abernethy A, Duffin KC, Bhushan R, et al. The International Dermatology Outcome Measures Group: Formation of patient-centered outcome measures in dermatology. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2015;72: 345–348. pmid:25486914
- 115. Schmitt J, Deckert S, Alam M, Apfelbacher C, Barbaric J, Bauer A, et al. Report from the kick-off meeting of the Cochrane Skin Group Core Outcome Set Initiative (CSG-COUSIN). Br J Dematology. 2016;174: 287–295. pmid:26779929
- 116. Pickering JW, Mordon SR, Brunetaud JM. The objective reporting of laser treatment of port wine stains. Lasers Med Sci. 1992;7: 415–421.
- 117. Rah DK, Kim SC, Lee KH, Park BY, Kim DW. Objective evaluation of treatment effects on port-wine stains using L*a*b* color coordinates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108: 842–847. pmid:11547137
- 118. Yong-Gee SA, Kurwa HA, Barlow RJ. Objective assessment of port-wine stains following treatment with the 585 nm pulsed dye laser. Australas J Dermatol. 2001;42: 243–246. pmid:11903154
- 119. Currie CL, Monk BE. Can the response of port-wine stains to laser treatment be reliably assessed using subjective methods? Br J Dermatol. 2000;143: 360–364. pmid:10951146
- 120. Le KVT, Shahidullah H, Frieden IJ. Review of modern techniques in detecting port-wine stain response to laser therapy. Dermatologic Surg. 1999;25: 127–132. pmid:10037519
- 121. Jung B, Kim C-S, Choi B, Kelly KM, Nelson JS. Use of erythema index imaging for systematic analysis of port wine stain skin response to laser therapy. Lasers Surg Med. 2005;37: 186–191. pmid:16175634
- 122. Astner S, Gonzalez S, Cuevas J, Rowert-Huber J, Sterry W, Stockfleth E, et al. Preliminary evaluation of benign vascular lesions using in vivo reflectance confocal microscopy. Dermatologic Surg. 2010;36: 1099–1110.
- 123. Liu G, Jia W, Nelson JS, Chen Z. In vivo, high-resolution, three-dimensional imaging of port wine stain microvasculature in human skin. Lasers Surg Med. 2013;45: 628–32. pmid:24155140
- 124. Zhou Y, Yin D, Xue P, Huang N, Qiu H, Wang Y, et al. Imaging of skin microvessels with optical coherence tomography: Potential uses in port wine stains. Exp Ther Med. 2012;4: 1017–1021. pmid:23226766
- 125. Sivarajan V, Smith G, Mackay IR. The validation of the Depth Measurement Videomicroscope (DMV) as a noninvasive tool for the assessment of capillary vascular malformations. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg JPRAS. 2007;60: 79–86.
- 126. Choi B, Tan W, Jia W, White SM, Moy WJ, Yang BY, et al. The Role of Laser Speckle Imaging in Port-Wine Stain Research: Recent Advances and Opportunities. IEEE J Sel Top Quantum Electron. 2016;22: 1–12. pmid:27013846
- 127. Mazhar A, Sharif SAS, David Cuccia J, Stuart Nelson J, Kelly KM, Durkin AJ. Spatial frequency domain imaging of port wine stain biochemical composition in response to laser therapy: A pilot study. Lasers Surg Med. 2012;44: 611–621. pmid:22911574
- 128. Sheehan-Dare R, Lanigan SW, Cotterill JA. Argon Laser Treatment of Port-wine Stains: Comparison of the Effects of 0.2 s and 1 s Pulse Duration. Lasers Med Sci. 1990;5: 271–276.
- 129. Lanigan SW. Measuring the improvement in pulsed dye laser treated port wine stains. Br J Dermatol. 2000;143: 241–3. pmid:10951129
- 130. Apfelbacher CJ, Nelson PA. Patient-reported outcome measures and qualitative research in dermatology: the quest for authenticity. Br J Dermatol. 2017;176: 285–287. pmid:28244071