Search

Summary: Background: Phototherapy and photochemotherapy are commonly used treatment modalities for a range of chronic skin conditions. Whilst undergoing ultraviolet radiation exposure, patients can wear personal protective equipment. Face shields in combination with other forms of skin cover may be worn to provide both skin and eye protection. There are a number of different types of eyewear and face shields available for purchase. Some of these have clear identifications that show the levels of protection provided whilst others may not have any. Methods: A series of similar experiments has been undertaken independently at two phototherapy treatment centres—Chapel Allerton Hospital, Leeds and Ninewells Hospital, Dundee—to investigate the effectiveness of different face shields and eye protection that are available for purchase in the United Kingdom (UK). Two similar examples of one face shield were tested at both centres, and another was transferred between the units. Results: Not all examples of the face shields and protective eyewear provided the wearer full protection between 300 nanometres and 400 nanometres (nm). Cost and conformance to different standards was not always a good indicator. Some inexpensive examples tested also met British Association of Dermatology protective sunglasses guidelines. Conclusions: It is incumbent on all centres to check the properties of protective face shields and eyewear provided to patients and operators to guard against the effects from ultraviolet radiation. There is no correlation between price of the protective equipment and level of protection offered, and there may be opportunity for cost savings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Reliable and objective outcome measures to facilitate clinical trials of novel treatments for systemic sclerosis (SSc)–related Raynaud's phenomenon (RP) are badly needed. Laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) and thermography are noninvasive measures of perfusion that have shown excellent potential. This multicenter study was undertaken to determine the reliability and validity of a hand cold challenge protocol using LSCI, standard thermography, and low‐cost cell phone/mobile phone thermography (henceforth referred to as mobile thermography) in patients with SSc‐related RP. Methods: Patients with RP secondary to SSc were recruited from 6 UK tertiary care centers. The patients underwent cold challenge on 2 consecutive days. Changes in cutaneous blood flow/skin temperature at each visit were imaged simultaneously using LSCI, standard thermography, and mobile thermography. Measurements included area under the curve (AUC) for reperfusion/rewarming and maximum blood flow rate/skin temperature after rewarming (MAX). Test–retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs). Estimated latent correlations (estimated from multilevel models, taking values between −1 and 1; denoted as rho values) were used to assess the convergent validity of LSCI and thermography. Results: In total, 159 patients (77% with limited cutaneous SSc) were recruited (84% female, median age 63.3 years). LSCI and standard thermography both had substantial reliability, with ICCs for the reperfusion/rewarming AUC of 0.67 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.54, 0.76) and 0.68 (95% CI 0.58, 0.80), respectively, and ICCs for the MAX of 0.64 (95% CI 0.52, 0.75) and 0.72 (95% CI 0.64, 0.81), respectively. Very high latent correlations were present for the AUCs of LSCI and thermography (ρ = 0.94; 95% CI 0.87, 1.00) and for the AUCs of standard and mobile thermography (ρ = 0.98; 95% CI 0.94, 1.00). Conclusion: This is the first multicenter study to examine the reliability and validity of cold challenge using LSCI and thermography in patients with SSc‐related RP. LSCI and thermography both demonstrated good potential as outcome measures. LSCI, standard thermography, and mobile thermography had very high convergent validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]