Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Ultrasound findings of the dcSSc patients and the control’s right forearm skin.

The echogenicity was determined as compared with site-matched, normal skin in healthy controls (Fig 1A), and was classified into isoechogenic (Fig 1B), hypoechogenic (Fig 1C), and hyperechogenic (Fig 1D).

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Ultrasound measured skin thickness of the dcSSc patients and the control’s right forearm.

The skin thickness was 0.6mm (between arrows) for controls (Fig 2A), and 1.0mm (between arrows) for patients (Fig 2B).

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 1.

Clinical data of 28 patients with dcSSc.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Skin thickness, ARFI, and mRSS of dcSSc patients and controls.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 3.

The skin thickness of dcSSc patients and controls.

Box plots represent the 25 and 75th percentile of measures, the median (line in box) and the minimum and maximum values (whiskers). The thickness increased as the echogenicity changed on the order of isoechoic, hypoechoic and hyperechoic (p<0.001). No significant difference was found between isoechoic patients and healthy controls (p = 0.142).

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

The ARFI quantification of dcSSc patients and controls.

Box plots represent the 25 and 75th percentile of measures, the median (line in box) and the minimum and maximum values (whiskers). The ARFI quantification was significantly higher in hyperechoic than isoechoic (p<0.001), no significant difference was found between hyperechoic and hypoechoic, or between hypoechoic and isoechoic (p = 0.117). The ARFI quantification was significantly higher in isoechoic than controls (p<0.001).

More »

Fig 4 Expand