Table 1

Median and per cent of respondents by agreement

Median (IQR)% Completely agree (100%)% Agree (70–99)% Neither agree nor disagree (31–69)% Disagree (1–30)% Completely disagree (0)
n (%)
1. Defining CLE as distinct from SLE is important.98.0 (15.5)28 (46.7)23 (38.3)5 (8.3)4 (6.7)0 (0.0)
2. CLE is SLE involving the skin in all cases of CLE.15.0 (67.0)5 (8.6)9 (15.5)5 (8.6)26 (44.8)13 (22.4)
3. Patients without serious end organ involvement, but who meet SLE criteria, should be part of a CLE grouping scheme.89.0 (24.5)11 (19.6)35 (62.5)5 (8.9)3 (5.4)2 (3.6)
4. Classification schemes of CLE are important for communication with patients and between physicians.99.0 (11.5)27 (45.0)28 (46.7)4 (6.7)1 (1.7)0 (0.0)
5. Grouping schemes of CLE are important to convey prognosis to patients.95.0 (25.0)22 (36.7)29 (48.3)6 (10.0)3 (5.0)0 (0.0)
6. A single international classification scheme is needed to enable communication with patients and physicians.98.0 (20.0)27 (45.8)27 (45.8)5 (8.5)0 (0.0)0 (0.0)
7. The current cutaneous lupus grouping systems are adequate to meet the needs of researchers, clinicians, patients and payers.30.0 (49.0)3 (5.4)10 (17.9)14 (25.0)22 (39.3)7 (12.5)
8. Regarding communication: there exists confusion when discussing these disorders with patients.83.0 (26.0)12 (20.3)35 (59.3)6 (10.2)6 (10.2)0 (0.0)
9. Regarding communication: there exists confusion when discussing these disorders with physicians.86.5 (22.0)16 (26.7)39 (65.0)3 (5.0)2 (3.3)0 (0.0)
10. Current grouping schemes are adequate to inform about risks during pregnancy.53.0 (49.0)0 (0.0)21 (36.8)16 (28.1)18 (31.6)2 (3.5)
11. The current grouping schemes (at present) are adequate for informing treatment decisions.45.0 (46.0)2 (3.6)12 (21.8)20 (36.4)19 (34.5)2 (3.6)
12. Cutaneous lupus is ill-defined and needs to be formally defined by expert consensus.85.0 (34.0)19 (32.2)25 (42.4)11 (18.6)3 (5.1)1 (1.7)
  • CLE, cutaneous lupus erythematosus; SLE, systemic lupus erythematosus.