| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- Isenberg, D., et al.
(författare)
-
Study of Flare Assessment in Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Based on Paper Patients
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Arthritis Care and Research. - : Wiley. - 2151-464X .- 2151-4658. ; 70:1, s. 98-103
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective: To determine the level of agreement of disease flare severity (distinguishing severe, moderate, and mild flare and persistent disease activity) in a large paper-patient exercise involving 988 individual cases of systemic lupus erythematosus. Methods: A total of 988 individual lupus case histories were assessed by 3 individual physicians. Complete agreement about the degree of flare (or persistent disease activity) was obtained in 451 cases (46%), and these provided the reference standard for the second part of the study. This component used 3 flare activity instruments (the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group [BILAG] 2004, Safety of Estrogens in Lupus Erythematosus National Assessment [SELENA] flare index [SFI] and the revised SELENA flare index [rSFI]). The 451 patient case histories were distributed to 18 pairs of physicians, carefully randomized in a manner designed to ensure a fair case mix and equal distribution of flare according to severity. Results: The 3-physician assessment of flare matched the level of flare using the 3 indices, with 67% for BILAG 2004, 72% for SFI, and 70% for rSFI. The corresponding weighted kappa coefficients for each instrument were 0.82, 0.59, and 0.74, respectively. We undertook a detailed analysis of the discrepant cases and several factors emerged, including a tendency to score moderate flares as severe and persistent activity as flare, especially when the SFI and rSFI instruments were used. Overscoring was also driven by scoring treatment change as flare, even if there were no new or worsening clinical features. Conclusion: Given the complexity of assessing lupus flare, we were encouraged by the overall results reported. However, the problem of capturing lupus flare accurately is not completely solved.
|
|
| 15. |
- Kaul, A, et al.
(författare)
-
Systemic lupus erythematosus
- 2016
-
Ingår i: Nature reviews. Disease primers. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2056-676X. ; 2, s. 16039-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
- Orbai, A-M, et al.
(författare)
-
Anti-C1q antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus.
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Lupus. - : SAGE Publications. - 0961-2033 .- 1477-0962. ; 24:1, s. 42-49
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Anti-C1q has been associated with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and lupus nephritis in previous studies. We studied anti-C1q specificity for SLE (vs rheumatic disease controls) and the association with SLE manifestations in an international multicenter study.
|
|
| 18. |
- Petri, Michelle, et al.
(författare)
-
Derivation and validation of the systemic lupus international collaborating clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Arthritis and Rheumatism. - : Wiley. - 1529-0131 .- 0004-3591. ; 64:8, s. 2677-2686
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective 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. Methods 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. Results 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; P = 0.0082) and had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%; P < 0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%; P = 0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (62 versus 74; P = 0.24) and had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%; P < 0.0001) but lower specificity (84% versus 96%; P < 0.0001). Conclusion 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 antidouble-stranded DNA antibodies.
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
|
|
