Reliability, validity and feasibility of the vitiligo extent score (Ves) and self-assessment vitiligo extent score (sa-ves) among vitiligo patients: A cross-cultural validation

13Citations
Citations of this article
25Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: The Vitiligo Extent Score (VES) and Self-Assessment Vitiligo Extent Score (SA-VES) have not been formally validated in Thai population. Objective: To evaluate reliability, validity and feasibility of the VES and SA-VES in Thai vitiligo patients. Methods: Vitiligo lesions from 100 patients were evaluated by 2 independent dermatologists using VES and Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI). Reliability was assessed by comparing VES scores between physicians. Validity was determined by comparison among the VES, VASI, and SA-VES instruments. Patients scored their vitiligo severity using the SA-VES. Results: The reliability of the VES was excellent (inter-rater reliability: 0.997, 95% con-fidence interval: 0.995–0.998). There was very strong correlation between the VES and VASI (r=0.976, p<0.001), and strong correlation between the VES and SA-VES (r=0.890, p<0.001), and between the VASI and SA-VES (r=0.866, p<0.001). Moderate correlation among the VES, VASI, and SA-VES was observed in patients with segmental or <1% body surface area (BSA) vitiligo. Ninety-five percent of patients rated the SA-VES as easy to moderately easy. Conclusion: The VES has reliability and validity comparable to that of the VASI. The SA-VES is an user-friendly instrument that correlated well with physicians’ scoring methods in patients with non-segmental or >1% BSA vitiligo.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chaweekulrat, P., Silpa-Archa, N., Apinuntham, C., Chaiyabutr, C., & Wongpraparut, C. (2021). Reliability, validity and feasibility of the vitiligo extent score (Ves) and self-assessment vitiligo extent score (sa-ves) among vitiligo patients: A cross-cultural validation. Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dermatology, 14, 949–957. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCID.S324073

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free