AB0693 DUROMETRY: HARD FACTS IN SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS – A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW
Authors: Amber Vanhaecke, Maurizio Cutolo, Sven Verschuere, Sabrina Paolino, Carmen Pizzorni, Vanessa Smith
Journal: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases (2019)

<h3>Background</h3> Fibrosis represents one of the main characteristics of systemic sclerosis (SSc), with skin and internal organ involvement being its main clinical expressions. The modified Rodnan Skin Score (mRSS), using clinical palpation to estimate skin thickness, is considered the current "gold standard" to measure skin involvement in a semi-quantitative way. The mRSS has been judged as fully valid through the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials (OMERACT) Filter, however a high risk of observer bias exists. Therefore, a new challenge for the SSc community is to define a reliable tool, able to more precisely investigate skin involvement in SSc patients, which would be of great value in clinical trials. Durometry, able to objectively investigate skin hardness, might address this need. <h3>Objectives</h3> To appreciate the validation status of durometry in SSc patients, guided by a systematic literature review. <h3>Methods</h3> Relevant full-text articles using durometry in SSc patients were identified through a systematic literature search in in PubMed, EMBASE and Web of Science, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Besides this systematic search, an additional hand search was performed through reference list screening. All retrieved records were screened by two raters based on title, abstract and full-text level to finally include manuscripts eligible for quality appraisal and data extraction. The finally included manuscripts were analysed according to the OMERACT Filter 2.0. <h3>Results</h3> The systematic search yielded 94 records, of which 50 were unique. Seven records were retained for full-text review and analysis, comprising one randomised clinical trial (RCT). The pillar feasibility was well documented in 3 studies [1-3]. Of note, the credibility (i.e. having face validity) of durometry was considered to be valid, as was stated by Kissin et al. [1]. Concerning the pillar truth: content validity was confirmed as durometry correlated well with histological findings (i.e. myofibroblast score and hyalinized collagen, r=0.69 and 0.78 respectively) [4], construct validity was confirmed as a moderate to high significant correlation with the total mRSS was documented in 5 studies (correlation coefficients ranging 0.59-0.81) [1, 3-6]. Concerning the pillar discrimination, the sensitivity to change in the context of one RCT was confirmed [3], inter-rater reliability was confirmed as intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) ranged from 0.61-0.91 in 2 studies, of which one RCT [1, 3], intra-rater reliability has not been confirmed as this was domain was only investigated in a cohort 5 SSc patients (ICC 0.86-0.94) and thus solid evidence was lacking [1]. The sensitivity to change in situations of change (i.e. change over time, discrimination between SSc patients or between SSc patients and controls) was not confirmed, since solid evidence was lacking in literature. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Current systematically identified evidence suggests partial validation of durometry in SSc patients according to the OMERACT Filter 2.0. Further dedicated studies are needed to completely validate this tool in SSc, more specifically concerning the pillar 'discrimination'. <h3>References</h3> [1] Kissin &amp; Schiller. Arthritis Rheum2006;55(4):603–9 [2] Falanga. J am acad Dermatol1993;29(1):47–51 [3] Merkel. Arthritis Care Res2008;59(5):699–705 [4] Kissin &amp; Merkel. Arthritis Rheum2006;54(11):3655–60 [5] Moon. Rheumatol int2012;32(8):2465–70 [6] Wiese. Arthritis Care Res2014;66(11):1731–9 <h3>Disclosure of interests</h3> None declared