OBJECTIVES: (i) To accurately define these lesions determining whether oral nicorandil-induced lesions are aphthous ulcers; (ii) To determine clinical characteristics of oral nicorandil-induced lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two slide conferences were held. A total of 60 dermatologists assigned diagnosis and clinical criteria to 11 photographs of oral nicorandil-induced lesions. Two slides were randomly selected and duplicated to be used as control. The panel of slides included independent lesions and photographs of different lesions of the same patient. Statistical analysis used chi2-test, estimation of the percentage interobserver agreement, and kappa-values. RESULTS: The diagnosis of non-aphthous ulcer (71.8%) was significantly held in comparison with the diagnosis of oral aphthous ulcer (28.2%; P<0.001). To differentiate aphthous ulcer from non-aphthous ulcer, physicians significantly used three clinical criteria. The diagnosis of non-aphthous ulcer were significantly associated with the absence of yellow-based ulceration (P<0.001), with the linear shape (P=0.006) and the absence of inflammatory halo (P=0.003). CONCLUSION:Oral nicorandil-induced lesions are not aphthous ulcers. We propose that at this stage of our knowledge, oral nicorandil-induced ulcer is the most suitable terminology.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: (i) To accurately define these lesions determining whether oral nicorandil-induced lesions are aphthous ulcers; (ii) To determine clinical characteristics of oral nicorandil-induced lesions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two slide conferences were held. A total of 60 dermatologists assigned diagnosis and clinical criteria to 11 photographs of oral nicorandil-induced lesions. Two slides were randomly selected and duplicated to be used as control. The panel of slides included independent lesions and photographs of different lesions of the same patient. Statistical analysis used chi2-test, estimation of the percentage interobserver agreement, and kappa-values. RESULTS: The diagnosis of non-aphthous ulcer (71.8%) was significantly held in comparison with the diagnosis of oral aphthous ulcer (28.2%; P<0.001). To differentiate aphthous ulcer from non-aphthous ulcer, physicians significantly used three clinical criteria. The diagnosis of non-aphthous ulcer were significantly associated with the absence of yellow-based ulceration (P<0.001), with the linear shape (P=0.006) and the absence of inflammatory halo (P=0.003). CONCLUSION: Oral nicorandil-induced lesions are not aphthous ulcers. We propose that at this stage of our knowledge, oral nicorandil-induced ulcer is the most suitable terminology.