ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2022
Domains and outcome measures for the assessment of limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis: an international collaborative scoping review.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomised open-label pilot trial comparing mycophenolate mofetil with no immunosuppression in limited cutaneous systemic sclerosis (MINIMISE-Pilot).Rheumatology (Oxford, England) · 2026Trial
- Reprogramming of the lipid metabolism axis in systemic sclerosis: mechanism analysis and therapeutic potential.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Review
- Article
- The long-term course of the Health Assessment Questionnaire in patients with systemic sclerosis.Journal of scleroderma and related disorders · 2023Article
- Cutaneous Manifestations, Clinical Characteristics, and Prognosis of Patients With Systemic Sclerosis Sine Scleroderma: Data From the International EUSTAR Database.JAMA dermatology · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to comprehensively identify instruments within relevant domains employed to assess lcSSc since the endorsement of its consensus definition in 1988. The overall objective is to inform the creation of a Combined Response Index for Scleroderma Trials Assessing lcSSc (CRISTAL).
methodsMEDLINE and Embase were searched using terms selected to comprehensively retrieve titles and abstracts mentioning both lcSSc and dcSSc, along with those only mentioning lcSSc, SSc sine scleroderma, limited SSc and/or CREST/CRST. Because our initial assessment of the literature revealed that very few studies included only lcSSc subjects, we also assessed literature that included both cutaneous subsets. A total of 3964 titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers, and 270 articles were selected for data extraction.
resultsWe identified 27 domains encompassing 459 instruments. Instruments from 'Skin involvement', 'Pulmonary involvement' and 'Health-related quality of life and general functioning' were the most frequently retrieved. Among the 15 most represented instruments announced as primary end points in efficacy or effectiveness studies, 7 were clinician-reported outcomes (ROs), 7 were patient ROs, and one was a performance outcome (6 min-walk test). The mean proportion of lcSSc patients in studies of lcSSc, including studies that mention both lcSSc and dcSSc, was 56.4%, demonstrating that this subset is underrepresented in the literature, given that the prevalence of lcSSc ranges from 60% to 80% in national registries and international cohorts.
conclusionThis scoping literature review provides a comprehensive identification of domains and outcomes used to assess lcSSc. Our results also highlight that lcSSc is underrepresented in the literature.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.