Kimberly Showalter1, Peter A Merkel2,3, Dinesh Khanna4, Jessica K Gordon1. 1. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York, NY, USA. 2. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 4. Division of Rheumatology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
Background: The modified Rodnan skin score is a common primary outcome measurement tool in clinical trials of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). However, it is unknown how often physicians perform the modified Rodnan skin score in clinical practice or what precise approach is most often used when assessing each of the 17 sites included in the modified Rodnan skin score (i.e. "maximizing," "averaging," "representative area"). This study assessed the experiences, perceptions, training, and practices of individuals studying scleroderma with regard to modified Rodnan skin score. Methods: An invitation with an online survey link was sent electronically to 282 individuals who are part of the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium. The 46-item survey included three sections: participant demographics, modified Rodnan skin score background/training, and modified Rodnan skin score assessment practices. The survey was accessible for 5 weeks (October-November 2019). Results: The response rate was 41% (116 of 282 individuals). The majority of participants perform the modified Rodnan skin score in clinical care (>99%) and practice at academic institutions (90%) in North America (41%) or Europe (40%). Nearly all participants felt that the modified Rodnan skin score is either "somewhat important" (43%) or "essential" (56%) to the care of patients with systemic sclerosis. In total, 91% of participants reported having received modified Rodnan skin score training. The majority (60%) of those who had not received training were interested in receiving modified Rodnan skin score training, and 39% of participants felt either "uncomfortable" or only "somewhat comfortable" performing the modified Rodnan skin score. The modified Rodnan skin score approach varied: 44% used "maximizing," 28% used "averaging," and 18% used "representative area." Conclusion: A majority of participants feel that the modified Rodnan skin score is "essential" to the care of patients with systemic sclerosis; however, the method used to measure modified Rodnan skin score varies greatly among systemic sclerosis investigators. These results indicate a continued role of modified Rodnan skin score for care and research in systemic sclerosis, support ongoing efforts to increase opportunities for modified Rodnan skin score training, and highlight a potential need to harmonize the technical approach to measuring the modified Rodnan skin score.
Background: The modified Rodnan skin score is a common primary outcome measurement tool in clinical trials of systemic sclerosis (scleroderma). However, it is unknown how often physicians perform the modified Rodnan skin score in clinical practice or what precise approach is most often used when assessing each of the 17 sites included in the modified Rodnan skin score (i.e. "maximizing," "averaging," "representative area"). This study assessed the experiences, perceptions, training, and practices of individuals studying scleroderma with regard to modified Rodnan skin score. Methods: An invitation with an online survey link was sent electronically to 282 individuals who are part of the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium. The 46-item survey included three sections: participant demographics, modified Rodnan skin score background/training, and modified Rodnan skin score assessment practices. The survey was accessible for 5 weeks (October-November 2019). Results: The response rate was 41% (116 of 282 individuals). The majority of participants perform the modified Rodnan skin score in clinical care (>99%) and practice at academic institutions (90%) in North America (41%) or Europe (40%). Nearly all participants felt that the modified Rodnan skin score is either "somewhat important" (43%) or "essential" (56%) to the care of patients with systemic sclerosis. In total, 91% of participants reported having received modified Rodnan skin score training. The majority (60%) of those who had not received training were interested in receiving modified Rodnan skin score training, and 39% of participants felt either "uncomfortable" or only "somewhat comfortable" performing the modified Rodnan skin score. The modified Rodnan skin score approach varied: 44% used "maximizing," 28% used "averaging," and 18% used "representative area." Conclusion: A majority of participants feel that the modified Rodnan skin score is "essential" to the care of patients with systemic sclerosis; however, the method used to measure modified Rodnan skin score varies greatly among systemic sclerosis investigators. These results indicate a continued role of modified Rodnan skin score for care and research in systemic sclerosis, support ongoing efforts to increase opportunities for modified Rodnan skin score training, and highlight a potential need to harmonize the technical approach to measuring the modified Rodnan skin score.
Authors: P A Merkel; N P Silliman; P J Clements; C P Denton; D E Furst; M D Mayes; J E Pope; R P Polisson; J B Streisand; J R Seibold Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2012-10
Authors: Robyn T Domsic; Tatiana Rodriguez-Reyna; Mary Lucas; Noreen Fertig; Thomas A Medsger Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 2010-08-02 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Dinesh Khanna; Daniel E Furst; Philip J Clements; Yannick Allanore; Murray Baron; Lazlo Czirjak; Oliver Distler; Ivan Foeldvari; Masataka Kuwana; Marco Matucci-Cerinic; Maureen Mayes; Thomas Medsger; Peter A Merkel; Janet E Pope; James R Seibold; Virginia Steen; Wendy Stevens; Christopher P Denton Journal: J Scleroderma Relat Disord Date: 2017 Jan-Apr
Authors: P J Clements; P A Lachenbruch; J R Seibold; B Zee; V D Steen; P Brennan; A J Silman; N Allegar; J Varga; M Massa Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 1993-11 Impact factor: 4.666