OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a repeated teaching process of the modified Rodnan skin score (MRSS) in systemic sclerosis (SSc). The question is whether a repeated teaching course is required to maintain good results after a first, successful teaching process. METHODS: Two consecutive teaching courses were organised by two Romanian EUSTAR centres for the same rheumatologists, to evaluate and compare the inter-observer variability. Coefficients of variation, the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and the within patient standard deviations were calculated. RESULTS: The ICC showed good agreement between 12 participants of both the first teaching course (0.639) and of the course seven months later (0.684). CONCLUSIONS: For rheumatologists, a good ICC that is close to 0.7 can be achieved, and these results remain stable without the need for another, repeated teaching cycle. The high inter-rater variations seen in some patients demand that, in clinical studies, the same investigator should assess the same patient at each visit.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of a repeated teaching process of the modified Rodnan skin score (MRSS) in systemic sclerosis (SSc). The question is whether a repeated teaching course is required to maintain good results after a first, successful teaching process. METHODS: Two consecutive teaching courses were organised by two Romanian EUSTAR centres for the same rheumatologists, to evaluate and compare the inter-observer variability. Coefficients of variation, the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) and the within patient standard deviations were calculated. RESULTS: The ICC showed good agreement between 12 participants of both the first teaching course (0.639) and of the course seven months later (0.684). CONCLUSIONS: For rheumatologists, a good ICC that is close to 0.7 can be achieved, and these results remain stable without the need for another, repeated teaching cycle. The high inter-rater variations seen in some patients demand that, in clinical studies, the same investigator should assess the same patient at each visit.
Authors: Ki Won Moon; Ran Song; Jin Hyun Kim; Eun Young Lee; Eun Bong Lee; Yeong Wook Song Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2011-07-19 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Sandra A Mitchell; David Jacobsohn; Kimberly E Thormann Powers; Paul A Carpenter; Mary E D Flowers; Edward W Cowen; Mark Schubert; Maria L Turner; Stephanie J Lee; Paul Martin; Michael R Bishop; Kristin Baird; Javier Bolaños-Meade; Kevin Boyd; Jane M Fall-Dickson; Lynn H Gerber; Jean-Pierre Guadagnini; Matin Imanguli; Michael C Krumlauf; Leslie Lawley; Li Li; Bryce B Reeve; Janine Austin Clayton; Georgia B Vogelsang; Steven Z Pavletic Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2011-04-12 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Adela R Cardones; Keith M Sullivan; Cindy Green; Nelson J Chao; Krista Rowe-Nichols; Lionel L Bañez; Claude S Burton; Mitchell E Horwitz; Gwynn D Long; Caroline L Rao; Stefanie Sarantopoulos; Navjeet Sidhu-Malik; Anthony D Sung; Russell P Hall Journal: JAMA Dermatol Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 10.282
Authors: Christopher A Mecoli; C Conover Talbot; Andrea Fava; Christopher Cheadle; Francesco Boin; Fredrick M Wigley; Laura K Hummers Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-05-14 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Y A Suliman; C Bruni; S R Johnson; E Praino; M Alemam; N Borazan; L Cometi; B Meyers; D Khanna; Y Allanore; M Baron; T Krieg; A Herrick; A Afonso; O Distler; S Kafaja; C P Denton; M Matucci-Cerinic; D E Furst Journal: J Scleroderma Relat Disord Date: 2017-05-19