ArticleClinical rheumatology2019
Pan-American League of Associations for Rheumatology (PANLAR) capillaroscopy study group consensus for the format and content of the report in capillaroscopy in rheumatology.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Guidelines of the Polish Respiratory Society on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Progressive Fibrosing Interstitial Lung Diseases Other than Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis.Advances in respiratory medicine · 2022Guideline
- Non-rheumatologic indications of nail fold capillaroscopy: findings in type 2 diabetic patients with or without diabetic retinopathy: a cross-sectional study.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
- Does the use of nail cosmetics interfere with the reporting of nailfold capillaroscopy?Clinical rheumatology · 2023Article
- Nailfold capillaroscopy in diabetes mellitus: a case of neo-angiogenesis after achieving normoglycemia.Oxford medical case reports · 2022Article
- Nailfold capillaroscopy in rheumatology: ready for the daily use but with care in terminology.Clinical rheumatology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this work was to produce a consensus-based report for capillaroscopy in rheumatology to be used in daily clinical practice.
methodsA written Delphi questionnaire regarding capillaroscopy report was developed from a literature review and expert consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was sent to an international panel including 25 rheumatologists experts in capillaroscopy, asking them to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. The exercise consisted of three online rounds and a face-to-face (live meeting) that took place in the PANLAR 2018 congress held in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
resultsThe participants to the first, second, third, and face-to-face round were 22, 21, 21, and 16 rheumatologists, respectively. Fifty-five items were discussed in the first round, 58 in the second, 22 in the third, and 9 in the face-to-face meeting. At the end of the exercise, 46 recommendations for the capillaroscopy report in rheumatology reached a consensus.
conclusionThis is the first consensus-based report in capillaroscopy. It will be useful in daily clinical practice and to address the effort of the standardization in the technique. KEY POINTS: • The current lack of consensus for the capillaroscopy report makes difficult the interpretation of findings as well as follow-up of rheumatic diseases. • This study produced the first international consensus for the format and content of the naifold capillaroscopy report in rheumatology. • The report is an integral part of the capillaroscopy examination and its use in a homogeneous form can help in the correct interpretation of findings in daily practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31177397What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.