The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Neogi Tuhina, Aletaha Daniel, Silman Alan J, Naden Raymond L, Felson David T, Aggarwal Rohit, Bingham Clifton O, Birnbaum Neal S, Burmester Gerd R, Bykerk Vivian P, Cohen Marc D, Combe Bernard, Costenbader Karen H, Dougados Maxime, Emery Paul, Ferraccioli Gianfranco, Hazes Johanna M W, Hobbs Kathryn, Huizinga Tom W J, Kavanaugh Arthur, Kay Jonathan, Khanna Dinesh, Kvien Tore K, Laing Timothy, Liao Katherine, Mease Philip, Ménard Henri A, Moreland Larry W, Nair Raj, Pincus Theodore, Ringold Sarah, Smolen Josef S, Stanislawska-Biernat Ewa, Symmons Deborah, Tak Paul P, Upchurch Katherine S, Vencovský Jirí, Wolfe Frederick, Hawker Gillian, American College of Rheumatology, European League Against Rheumatism
Аннотация
METHODS: Twenty-four expert RA clinicians (12 from Europe and 12 from North America) participated in Phase 2. A consensus-based decision analysis approach was used to identify factors (and their relative weights) that influence the probability of "developing RA," complemented by data from the Phase 1 study. Patient case scenarios were used to identify and reach consensus on factors important in determining the probability of RA development. Decision analytic software was used to derive the relative weights for each of the factors and their categories, using choice-based conjoint analysis.
RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that the new classification criteria should be applied to individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis in whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis. In this clinical setting, they identified 4 additional criteria as being important: number of joints involved and site of involvement, serologic abnormality, acute-phase response, and duration of symptoms in the involved joints. These criteria were consistent with those identified in the Phase 1 data-driven approach.
CONCLUSION: The consensus-based, decision analysis approach used in Phase 2 complemented the Phase 1 efforts. The 4 criteria and their relative weights form the basis of the final criteria set.