| Contributors: |
Ingegnoli, Francesca; Pireddu, Debora; Platania, Elena; De Angelis, Rossella; Alunno, Alessia; Ariani, Alarico; Barsotti, Simone; Batani, Veronica; Belloli, Laura; Bezzi, Alessandra; Bosello, Silvia Laura; Cacciapaglia, Fabio; Calvisi, Stefania Laura; Carlo-Stella, Nicoletta; Carubbi, Francesco; Cavazzana, Ilaria; Codullo, Veronica; Colaci, Michele; Cornalba, Martina; Cuomo, Giovanna; De Marchi, Ginevra; Della Rossa, Alessandra; Di Battista, Marco; Di Ruscio, Evy; Faggioli, Paola; Favero, Marta; Foti, Roberta; Girelli, Francesco; Giuggioli, Dilia; Guiducci, Serena; Gotelli, Emanuele; Grosso, Vittorio; Hysa, Elvi; Iuliano, Annamaria; Lalli, Francesca; Leveghi, Lorenzo; Marasco, Emiliano; Mennillo, Gianna; Moroncini, Gianluca; Pellegrino, Greta; Perricone, Carlo; Pizzorni, Carmen; Praino, Emanuela; Quarta, Laura; Ramoni, Véronique Laure; Santo, Leonardo; Schenone, Carlotta; Sebastiani, Marco; Serafino, Lucia; Serban, Teodora; Stobbione, Paolo; Sulli, Alberto; Truglia, Simona; Smith, Vanessa; Cutolo, Maurizio; Riccieri, Valeria |
| Description: |
Objectives: In clinical practice, standardised reporting of nailfold videocapillaroscopy (NVC) findings is lacking, making the interpretation and comparison of results difficult. We aimed to achieve a national consensus on how to describe NVC findings in routine clinical practice. Methods: A web-based Delphi consensus study was conducted among members of the Study Group on Capillaroscopy and Microcirculation in Rheumatic Diseases of the Italian Society of Rheumatology (CAPSIR). The study was based on items derived from a previous systematic review and international consensus by the EULAR Study Group on Microcirculation in Rheumatic Diseases (SG_MC/RD). Results: A total of 40 items were proposed during the Delphi process, which was completed by 52 participants from different Italian regions. An agreement was reached on 23 items covering different aspects of the NVC examination: general aspects (2 items), description of the fingers examined (3 items), possible confounding factors (2 items), device description (2 items), image quality (1 item) and details of the NVC examination (13 items). Sixteen of these were considered mandatory for inclusion in the NVC practice report, and 7 were considered optional. Conclusions: The proposed NVC checklist covers 23 relevant issues in clinical practice, including 16 mandatory items grouped into five categories. This national consensus will improve the reproducibility and generalisability of NVC reporting in daily clinical practice. Furthermore, the outcomes of this NVC consensus process will inform the next European web-based Delphi consensus study, to be conducted among the member countries of the EULAR SG_MC/RD. |