CT evaluation of interstitial lung disease related to systemic sclerosis: visual versus automated assessment. A systematic review.

AIM: To identify similarities and differences between visual (VA) and automated assessment (AA) of systemic sclerosis-related interstitial lung disease (SSc-ILD) at chest computed tomography (CT) in terms of clinical applicability. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medline, Embase, and Web of Science were searched to identify all studies investigating VA and AA for SSc-ILD assessment, from inception to 31 July 2022. Exclusion criteria were manuscripts not in English, absence of full-text, reviews, diseases other than ILD in SSc, CT not analysed with both VA and AA, VA and AA not adopted for the same purpose or not compared, overlap syndromes, SSc-ILD data not extractable, and studies with <10 patients. RESULTS: Ten full-text studies (804 patients) were included. The most adopted VAs were the Warrick or Goh score (four studies each), while densitometry (eight studies) or lung texture analysis (LTA, two studies) were utilised as AAs. The main field of investigation was the correlation with baseline pulmonary function tests (PFT, six studies). Warrick VA showed lower correlations compared to densitometry, while Goh VA demonstrated more heterogeneous results. Compared to LTA, Goh VA obtained lower correlations with lung volumes but similar or stronger coefficients with alveolar diffusibility. CONCLUSIONS: VA and AA may show heterogeneous results comparing their correlations with PFT, probably depending on the specific analysis adopted for each method. More data are needed on VA versus LTA. Comparisons between VA and AA regarding correlation with PFT follow-up and as prognostic elements, or for disease monitoring, are lacking. AAs in progressive fibrosis diagnosis remain to be tested.

Comparison of the Health Assessment Questionnaire and Arthritis Impact Measurement Scale in patients with psoriatic arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which of two instruments, the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS), was more closely correlated with the main parameters reflecting activity and severity of psoriatic arthritis. METHODS: Both instruments were administered to 72 consecutive patients with psoriatic arthritis. RESULTS: Global HAQ and AIMS scores were closely correlated with each other (rs = 0.747; P < 0.00001). AIMS physical function scales--namely physical activity, dexterity, social activity and activities of daily living--were moderately or closely correlated with the main clinical disease activity parameters, most notably morning stiffness of axial joints (rs = 0.271-0.551). Scales measuring psychological status yielded weaker correlations with disease activity parameters (rs = 0.241-0.277) and were also correlated with the visual analog scale score for skin lesion severity. Morning stiffness of peripheral joints was correlated only with two AIMS scales, namely pain (rs = 0.532) and activities of daily living (rs = 0.303). Severity of radiological damage of peripheral and axial joints was most closely correlated with the scales of physical function, most notably physical activity. The global and scale HAQ scores showed moderate to close correlations with the main clinical disease activity parameters, most notably morning stiffness of axial joints. The global HAQ score was also correlated with radiological carpal involvement and with the radiological severity of peripheral joint involvement, whereas only the arising and hygiene scales were (moderately) correlated with the radiological severity of spinal involvement. CONCLUSION: Although both the HAQ and the AIMS were useful in assessing health status in psoriatic arthritis patients, only the AIMS captured some of the effects of the skin lesions. Our data also suggest that the AIMS may be more effective than the HAQ for evaluating the effect of radiological lesions produced by psoriatic arthritis.