The reliability of three psoriasis assessment tools: Psoriasis area and severity index, body surface area and physician global assessment.

BACKGROUND A wide variety of psoriasis assessment tools have been proposed to evaluate the severity of psoriasis in clinical trials and daily practice. The most frequently used clinical instrument is the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI); however, none of the currently published severity scores used for psoriasis meets all the validation criteria required for an ideal score. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to compare and assess the reliability of 3 commonly used assessment instruments for psoriasis severity: the psoriasis area and severity index (PASI), body surface area (BSA) and physician global assessment (PGA). MATERIAL AND METHODS On the scoring day, 10 trained dermatologists evaluated 9 adult patients with plaque-type psoriasis using the PASI, BSA and PGA. All the subjects were assessed twice by each physician. Correlations between the assessments were analyzed using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was calculated to analyze intra-rater reliability, and the coefficient of variation (CV) was used to assess inter-rater variability. RESULTS Significant correlations were observed among the 3 scales in both assessments. In all 3 scales the ICCs were > 0.75, indicating high intra-rater reliability. The highest ICC was for the BSA (0.96) and the lowest one for the PGA (0.87). The CV for the PGA and PASI were 29.3 and 36.9, respectively, indicating moderate inter-rater variability. The CV for the BSA was 57.1, indicating high inter-rater variability. CONCLUSIONS Comparing the PASI, PGA and BSA, it was shown that the PGA had the highest inter-rater reliability, whereas the BSA had the highest intra-rater reliability. The PASI showed intermediate values in terms of interand intra-rater reliability. None of the 3 assessment instruments showed a significant advantage over the other. A reliable assessment of psoriasis severity requires the use of several independent evaluations simultaneously.