An evaluation of two novel capillaroscopy techniques in suspected scleroderma-spectrum disorders: A single-centre cross-sectional study

Figures & data

Figure 1. Digital photographs of an identical nailfold taken with each novel technique in two patients. (a, b) Normal appearance; (c, d) SD-pattern (abnormal showing multiple giant capillaries and avascular areas).

Table 1. The diagnostic performance of the smartphone-lens and smartphone-dermatoscope techniques stratified by assessor’s prior experience of nailfold capillaroscopy.

		True positive (n)	True negative (n)	False positive (n)	False negative (n)	Sensitivity (95% CI)	Specificity (95% CI)
Expert	Smartphone-lens	15	38	4	8	65% (58–72)	90% (84–96)
	Smartphone-dermatoscope	17	40	2	6	74% (66–82)	95% (88–100)
Intermediate	Smartphone-lens	15	41	1	8	65% (58–72)	98% (91–100)
	Smartphone-dermatoscope	17	41	1	6	74% (66–82)	98% (91–100)
Novice	Smartphone-lens	12	36	6	11	52% (45–59)	86% (80–92)
	Smartphone-dermatoscope	16	38	4	7	70% (62–78)	90% (84–96)

Figure 2. A post hoc analysis of the unclassifiable images combined for all assessors stratified by technique.