This update and revision of the international guideline for urticaria was developed in accordance with the methods recommended by Cochrane and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group. It is an initiative of the Global Allergy and Asthma Excellence Network (GA(2)LEN) and its Urticaria and Angioedema Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCAREs and ACAREs), with the participation of 210 delegates from 107 national and international societies, from 59 countries. The consensus conference was held on December 6th, 2024. This guideline was acknowledged and accepted by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS). Urticaria is a frequent, mast cell-driven disease, defined by a rapid appearance of wheals, angioedema, or both. The lifetime prevalence of acute urticaria is estimated to be approximately 20%. Chronic urticaria, categorized as either chronic spontaneous urticaria or chronic inducible urticaria, is disabling, impairs quality of life, and affects performance at work and school, however, novel therapies are available. This updated version of the international guideline for urticaria covers the definition and classification of urticaria and outlines expert-guided and evidence-based diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for the different subtypes of urticaria.
Objetivo: Describir el proceso de desarrollo y validación del contenido de un programa educativo de capacitación para el autocuidado de urostomías, fundamentado en evidencia científica, además de presentar una prueba de viabilidad inicial de su aplicación clínica. Método: El programa se desarrolló a partir de intervenciones de Enfermería identificadas en una revisión de alcance (scoping review) y se sometió a validación de contenido a cargo de un panel de seis enfermeros expertos en estomaterapia, utilizando el método Delphi. Posteriormente, se evaluó su operacionalización a través de una prueba de viabilidad exploratoria (estudio de caso único), con datos recopilados para fines de monitorización del proceso mediante la Urostomy Education Scale (UES). Resultados: La revisión de alcance mapeó 114 intervenciones de Enfermería, sustentando el desarrollo de un programa educativo estructurado compuesto por cinco sesiones. Después de su elaboración, se lo sometió a un proceso de validación, obteniendo una tasa de concordancia de los expertos de 0,8. La prueba de viabilidad demostró la operacionalización del programa y la sensibilidad de la escala UES para monitorizar el progreso del autocuidado (de déficit a autonomía), confirmando la pertinencia del algoritmo de intervención para situaciones de estancamiento de competencias. Conclusión: El programa educativo que se desarrolló y validó es una herramienta relevante para sistematizar la práctica clínica. La prueba de viabilidad demostró su potencial para promover la autonomía del paciente y monitorizar el proceso de capacitación.
Chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) markedly affects quality of life (QoL), and this study evaluated the Brazilian-Portuguese Chronic Urticaria Quality of Life Questionnaire (CU-Q2oL) in 169 patients with CSU, examining its validity, correlations with established patient-reported outcomes, and clinically meaningful severity cutoffs. CU-Q2oL scores correlated strongly with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), moderately with the Weekly Urticaria Activity Score (UAS7), and inversely with the Urticaria Control Test (UCT), and a data-driven four-tier severity model showed excellent discriminatory performance. These findings support the CU-Q2oL as a valid QoL instrument in CSU and suggest that the four-tier scoring system may improve clinical stratification and treatment planning.
BACKGROUND:Peer review is a central mechanism of scientific communication. However, despite its critical role in safeguarding research quality and integrity, there is limited evidence on how reviewers themselves perceive the factors that motivate or hinder their engagement. This study explored reviewers' perceptions of the motivations and barriers shaping participation in peer review. METHODS:A qualitative, exploratory-descriptive design was adopted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between June and September 2025 with participants holding an academic title in health sciences who had completed at least one peer review for a scientific journal. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed inductively using thematic analysis following Braun et al.'s framework. Data collection and analysis proceeded iteratively until thematic saturation was reached. RESULTS:Twenty-seven academics from seven health science disciplines participated in the study. Participants were predominantly female (63%), with similar proportions holding doctoral (52%) and master's degrees (48%), and peer-review activity in the previous 12 months ranging from 1 to more than 10 reviews. Findings were organised into two domains, motivations and barriers, comprising ten themes. Motivations included contribution to science, scientific development, career development, personal satisfaction, and financial incentives. Barriers included high workload, lack of recognition and incentives, perceived competence, research integrity, and editorial shortcomings. CONCLUSION:Reviewer engagement appears to be a negotiated process in which academics weigh motivations against barriers when deciding whether to participate in peer review. These trade-offs shape decisions to accept or decline review invitations. Strengthening recognition, transparency, and editorial support may help sustain reviewer participation in the health sciences.
