Chiara Bertolazzi1, Angélica Vargas Guerrero2, Tatiana Sofía Rodríguez-Reyna3, Hugo Sandoval4, Everardo Álvarez-Hernández5, Marcelo José Audisio6, Eduardo Cabello7, Paola Coral-Alvarado8, Ericka Díaz9, Virginia Duringan10, Karinna Espejo11, Selma Gallegos12, Gabriela Hernández-Molina3, Blanca Herrera9, Cristiane Kayser13, María Eugenia Lara14, Genessis Maldonado15, Marta N Mamani10, Alejandro Nitsche16, Carlos Ríos-Acosta17, Félix Enrique-Romanini10, María Sormani de Fonseca10, Verónica Silva Vilela18, Miguel Angel Villarreal-Alarcón19, Marwin Gutiérrez20. 1. Division of Musculoskeletal and Rheumatic Disorders, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Calzada Mexico-Xochimilco 289, Colonia Arenal de Guadalupe, CP 143898, Mexico City, Mexico. 2. Departament of Rheumatology, Instituto Nacional de Cardiología Ignacio Chávez, Mexico City, Mexico. 3. Department of Immunology and Rheumatology, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico. 4. Sociomedical Research Unit, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Mexico City, Mexico. 5. Rheumatology Service, Hospital General de México Dr. Eduardo Liceaga, SSA, Mexico City, Mexico. 6. Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Nacional de Clínicas, National University of Córdoba, Córdoba City, Argentina. 7. Rheumatology Service, Hospital Nacional Alberto Sabgoal Sologuren, Lima, Peru. 8. Reumatology Section, Santa Fe de Bogotá Foundation, Los Andes University, Bogotá, Colombia. 9. Rheumatology Section, Hospital del Seguro Social Universitario, Universidad San Francisco Xavier, Sucre, Chuquisaca, Bolivia. 10. Division of Rheumatology, Hospital Rivadavia, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 11. Unidad de Reumatologia, Centro de Excelencia en Reumatología, Lima, Peru. 12. Department of Rheumatology, Hospital Dr. Darío Fernández Fierro, Mexico City, Mexico. 13. Department of Rheumatology, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil. 14. Rheumatology Department, Lagomaggiore's Hospital, Mendoza, Argentina. 15. Department of Rheumatology, Espíritu Santo University, Guayaquil, Ecuador. 16. Division of Rheumatology, Hospital Alemán, Buenos Aires, Argentina. 17. Clinical Research Department, Rheumatology and Rehabilitation Center, Guayaquil, Ecuador. 18. Rheumatology Department, Hospital Universitário Pedro Ernesto, State University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 19. Rheumatology Service, Hospital Universitario "Dr. José Eleuterio González", Universidad Autónoma de Nuevo León, Monterrey, NL, Mexico. 20. Division of Musculoskeletal and Rheumatic Disorders, Instituto Nacional de Rehabilitación Luis Guillermo Ibarra Ibarra, Calzada Mexico-Xochimilco 289, Colonia Arenal de Guadalupe, CP 143898, Mexico City, Mexico. dr.gmarwin@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to produce a consensus-based report for capillaroscopy in rheumatology to be used in daily clinical practice. METHODS: A written Delphi questionnaire regarding capillaroscopy report was developed from a literature review and expert consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was sent to an international panel including 25 rheumatologists experts in capillaroscopy, asking them to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. The exercise consisted of three online rounds and a face-to-face (live meeting) that took place in the PANLAR 2018 congress held in Buenos Aires, Argentina. RESULTS: The participants to the first, second, third, and face-to-face round were 22, 21, 21, and 16 rheumatologists, respectively. Fifty-five items were discussed in the first round, 58 in the second, 22 in the third, and 9 in the face-to-face meeting. At the end of the exercise, 46 recommendations for the capillaroscopy report in rheumatology reached a consensus. CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based report in capillaroscopy. It will be useful in daily clinical practice and to address the effort of the standardization in the technique. KEY POINTS: • The current lack of consensus for the capillaroscopy report makes difficult the interpretation of findings as well as follow-up of rheumatic diseases. • This study produced the first international consensus for the format and content of the naifold capillaroscopy report in rheumatology. • The report is an integral part of the capillaroscopy examination and its use in a homogeneous form can help in the correct interpretation of findings in daily practice.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work was to produce a consensus-based report for capillaroscopy in rheumatology to be used in daily clinical practice. METHODS: A written Delphi questionnaire regarding capillaroscopy report was developed from a literature review and expert consensus. The Delphi questionnaire was sent to an international panel including 25 rheumatologists experts in capillaroscopy, asking them to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. The exercise consisted of three online rounds and a face-to-face (live meeting) that took place in the PANLAR 2018 congress held in Buenos Aires, Argentina. RESULTS: The participants to the first, second, third, and face-to-face round were 22, 21, 21, and 16 rheumatologists, respectively. Fifty-five items were discussed in the first round, 58 in the second, 22 in the third, and 9 in the face-to-face meeting. At the end of the exercise, 46 recommendations for the capillaroscopy report in rheumatology reached a consensus. CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based report in capillaroscopy. It will be useful in daily clinical practice and to address the effort of the standardization in the technique. KEY POINTS: • The current lack of consensus for the capillaroscopy report makes difficult the interpretation of findings as well as follow-up of rheumatic diseases. • This study produced the first international consensus for the format and content of the naifold capillaroscopy report in rheumatology. • The report is an integral part of the capillaroscopy examination and its use in a homogeneous form can help in the correct interpretation of findings in daily practice.
Authors: Maurizio Cutolo; Alberto Sulli; Maria Elena Secchi; Monica Olivieri; Carmen Pizzorni Journal: Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol Date: 2007-12 Impact factor: 4.098
Authors: Vanessa Smith; Carmen Pizzorni; Filip De Keyser; Saskia Decuman; Jens T Van Praet; Ellen Deschepper; Alberto Sulli; Maurizio Cutolo Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2010-05-03 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Slavica Pavlov-Dolijanovic; Nemanja S Damjanov; Roksanda M Stojanovic; Nada Z Vujasinovic Stupar; Dejana M Stanisavljevic Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2011-09-08 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: M Cutolo; C Pizzorni; M Tuccio; A Burroni; C Craviotto; M Basso; B Seriolo; A Sulli Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2004-03-16 Impact factor: 7.580