ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2026
Treating skin involvement in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: results from an international scleroderma specialist survey.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: To evaluate contemporary global treatment of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc) skin by SSc specialists. Methods: An anonymous survey was distributed via the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium, European Scleroderma Trials and Research Group (EUSTAR), and Collaborative National Quality and Efficacy Registry (CONQUER) distribution lists between June and September 2025. The survey comprised four sections: Demographics, Treatment of dcSSc Skin, Impact of Recent Guidelines, and Clinical Trials. Results: Responses included 103 physicians (93 completed): 43% North America, 31% Europe, 15% South America and 12% elsewhere. The majority practice within an SSc centre (80%) and participate in clinical trials (84%). Mycophenolate mofetil (MMF) was preferred first-line treatment (71%) for dcSSc without ILD, rising to 92% for dcSSc with mild/non-progressive ILD. For active skin involvement despite MMF, trial referral was preferred as next step irrespective of ILD (59% without ILD and 58% with ILD). Treatment preferences have evolved, with 40% increasing MMF use and 47% decreasing methotrexate use, over the previous 2-3 years. Biologic use has increased, with 56% and 37% reporting increasing rituximab and tocilizumab use, respectively. For dcSSc without ILD, 85% have prescribed rituximab, and 65% have prescribed tocilizumab. Biologic availability has impacted trial enrolment (73% agreement). Treatment decision-making for dcSSc skin involvement has been materially influenced by recent BSR and/or EULAR guidelines (43% agreement). Conclusion: MMF is preferred first-line for dcSSc. In the absence of compelling scientific justification for combination or step-up immunomodulatory approaches, trial referral is currently the preferred next treatment option. Biologic use is increasing, which impacts trial enrolment.
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.