Supplementary Material for: Fric Test Revisited: A Suggestion for a New Scoring System and Its Correlation with Urticaria Control Test and Dermatology Life Quality Index

Background: Fric test is a useful tool for the diagnosis and threshold testing for symptomatic dermographism. When threshold testing is not available, Urticaria Control Test (UCT) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) might be used to assess disease control and quality of life (QoL) impairment, respectively. Objectives: In this study, we aimed to describe a new scoring system for the Fric test and evaluate the correlations of Fric scores with UCT, DLQI, and other disease activity assessment scores. Method: Provocation test with Fric Test 4.0 was performed in all patients at referral and at the 4th week. We considered a 4-grade rating score for Fric Test (0–4) [Total Fric Score (TFS)]. A positive response with all of the four pins suggested severe dermographism (TFS = 4), while a wheal with only the largest pin (4.5 mm) was considered as milder disease (TFS = 1). Treatment responses were evaluated with Fric Test 4.0, UCT, patient’s global assessment of disease severity (PatGA-VAS), the physician’s global assessment of disease control (PhyGA-VAS), and DLQI at baseline and at the 4th week of treatment. The correlations of TFS with UCT, DLQI, PatGA-VAS, PhyGA-VAS at baseline as well as the changes in the mean scores after treatment (week 4) were performed. Results: The mean UCT and DLQI scores were 8.69 ± 3.40 and 7.88 ± 6.02 at the first visit. At the second visit, TFS decreased from a mean of 2.79 ± 1.68 to 1.91 ± 1.85 (p < 0.001), and UCT scores and PhyGA-VAS were increased (p < 0.001), while DLQI scores, PatGA-VAS, and pruritus scores decreased significantly (p = 0.002; p = 0.001; p = 0.012). There was a positive correlation between TFS and pruritus scores (r = 0.378) and DLQI scores (r = 0.392). TFS was found to have a negative correlation with UCT score (r = –0.283) and PhyGA-VAS (r = –0.347). Conclusions: This new Fric scoring system allows comparison with other tools and shows moderate correlations with most of the tools. Using disease-specific tools is recommended since they provide a subjective evaluation of disease severity, QoL impairment, and disease control.