ArticleRMD open2023
A stretchable hardness sensor for the assessment of skin disease in systemic sclerosis.
Article in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Untangling the relationship between smoking and systemic sclerosis: an analysis of the EUSTAR cohort.RMD open · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the validity of a hardness sensor to objectively assess skin induration in patients with systemic sclerosis, and to compare the hardness sensor with the modified Rodnan skin score (MRSS) and a durometer.
methodsThe skin induration was measured in two assessments: a Latin square experiment to examine the hardness sensor's intraobserver and interobserver reliability; and a longitudinal cohort to evaluate the distribution of hardness sensor measurements, the correlation between hardness sensor, durometer and MRSS, and the sensitivity to change in skin hardness. Other outcome data collected included the health assessment questionnaire (HAQ) disability index and Keitel function test (KTF) score.
resultsThe reliability of the hardness sensor was excellent, with high intraobserver and interobserver intraclass correlation coefficients (0.97; 0.96), which was higher than MRSS (0.86; 0.74). Interobserver reproducibility of hardness sensor was only poor in abdomen (0.38), yet for durometer it was poor in face (0.11) and abdomen (0.33). The hardness sensor score provided a greater dynamic evaluation range than MRSS. Total hardness sensor score correlated well with MRSS (r=0.90, p<0.001), total durometer score (r=0.95, p<0.001), HAQ disability index (r=0.70, p<0.001) and KTF score (r=0.66, p<0.001). Change in hardness sensor score also correlated with change in MRSS (r=0.78, p<0.001), total durometer score (r=0.85, p<0.001), HAQ disability index (r=0.76, p<0.001) and KTF score (r=0.67, p<0.001).
conclusionThe hardness sensor showed greater reproducibility and accuracy than MRSS, and more application sites than durometer; it can also reflect patients' self-assessments and function test outcomes.
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.