Wiley
0004-3591
1529-0131
Cơ quản chủ quản: N/A
Các bài báo tiêu biểu
The revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were formulated from a computerized analysis of 262 contemporary, consecutively studied patients with RA and 262 control subjects with rheumatic diseases other than RA (non‐RA). The new criteria are as follows: 1) morning stiffness in and around joints lasting at least 1 hour before maximal improvement; 2) soft tissue swelling (arthritis) of 3 or more joint areas observed by a physician; 3) swelling (arthritis) of the proximal interphalangeal, metacarpophalangeal, or wrist joints; 4) symmetric swelling (arthritis); 5) rheumatoid nodules; 6) the presence of rheumatoid factor; and 7) radiographic erosions and/or periarticular osteopenia in hand and/or wrist joints. Criteria 1 through 4 must have been present for at least 6 weeks. Rheumatoid arthritis is defined by the presence of 4 or more criteria, and no further qualifications (classic, definite, or probable) or list of exclusions are required. In addition, a “classification tree” schema is presented which performs equally as well as the traditional (4 of 7) format. The new criteria demonstrated 91–94% sensitivity and 89% specificity for RA when compared with non‐RA rheumatic disease control subjects.
The 1971 preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were revised and updated to incorporate new immunologic knowledge and improve disease classification. The 1982 revised criteria include fluorescence antinuclear antibody and antibody to native DNA and Sm antigen. Some criteria involving the same organ systems were aggregated into single criteria. Raynaud's phenomenon and alopecia were not included in the 1982 revised criteria because of low sensitivity and specificity. The new criteria were 96% sensitive and 96% specific when tested with SLE and control patient data gathered from 18 participating clinics. When compared with the 1971 criteria, the 1982 revised criteria showed gains in sensitivity and specificity.
To develop criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia, we studied 558 consecutive patients: 293 patients with fibromyalgia and 265 control patients. Interviews and examinations were performed by trained, blinded assessors. Control patients for the group with primary fibromyalgia were matched for age and sex, and limited to patients with disorders that could be confused with primary fibromyalgia. Control patients for the group with secondary‐concomitant fibromyalgia were matched for age, sex, and concomitant rheumatic disorders. Widespread pain (axial plus upper and lower segment plus left‐ and right‐sided pain) was found in 97.6% of all patients with fibromyalgia and in 69.1% of all control patients. The combination of widespread pain and mild or greater tenderness in ⩾ 11 of 18 tender point sites yielded a sensitivity of 88.4% and a specificity of 81.1%. Primary fibromyalgia patients and secondary‐concomitant fibromyalgia patients did not differ statistically in any major study variable, and the criteria performed equally well in patients with and those without concomitant rheumatic conditions. The newly proposed criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia are 1) widespread pain
The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticized for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA.
A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in 3 phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease—this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct “rheumatoid arthritis.”
In the new criteria set, classification as “definite RA” is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least 1 joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis that better explains the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in 4 domains: number and site of involved joints (score range 0–5), serologic abnormality (score range 0–3), elevated acute‐phase response (score range 0–1), and symptom duration (2 levels; range 0–1).
This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late‐stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease‐suppressing therapy to prevent or minimize the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct “rheumatoid arthritis.”
For the purposes of classification, it should be specified whether osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is of unknown origin (idiopathic, primary) or is related to a known medical condition or event (secondary). Clinical criteria for the classification of idiopathic OA of the knee were developed through a multicenter study group. Comparison diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis and other painful conditions of the knee, exclusive of referred or paraarticular pain. Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop sets of criteria that serve different investigative purposes. In contrast to prior criteria, these proposed criteria utilize classification trees, or algorithms.
The New York and the Rome diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and the clinical history screening test for AS were evaluated in relatives of AS patients and in population control subjects. The New York criterion of pain in the (dorso) lumbar spine lacks specificity, and the chest expansion criterion is too insensitive. The Rome criterion of low back pain for more than 3 months is very useful. Our study showed the clinical history screening test for AS to be moderately sensitive, but it might be better in clinical practice. As a modification of the New York criteria, substitution of the Rome pain criterion for the New York pain criterion is proposed.
A multicenter, ongoing study of early‐diagnosed cases of systemic sclerosis and comparison patients with systemic lupus erythematosus, polymyositis/dermatomyositis, and Raynaud's phenomenon was conducted in order to develop classification criteria for systemic sclerosis. Preliminary criteria are proposed, namely, the finding of either the sole major criterion, i.e.,1) sclerodactyly, 2) digital pitting scars of fingertips or loss of substance of the distal finger pad, and 3) bilateral basilar pulmonary fibrosis. When applied to the case and comparison patients included in this study, these proposed criteria had a 97% sensitivity for definite systemic sclerosis and 98% specificity.
The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE.
The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert‐rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. The SLICC group validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 new expert‐rated patient scenarios.
Seventeen criteria were identified. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70;
The new SLICC classification criteria performed well in a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. According to the SLICC rule for the classification of SLE, the patient must satisfy at least 4 criteria, including at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion OR the patient must have biopsy‐proven lupus nephritis in the presence of antinuclear antibodies or anti–double‐stranded DNA antibodies.