Cited by 545Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and TherapiesClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsMusculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation

Distinctions between diagnostic and classification criteria?

Open access
Aggarwal, Rohit, Ringold, Sarah, Khanna, Dinesh, Neogi, Tuhina, Johnson, Sindhu R., Miller, Amy, Brunner, Hermine I., Ogawa, Rikke +4 more·2015·Arthritis Care & Research

Abstract

Rheumatologists face unique challenges in discriminating between rheumatologic and non-rheumatologic disorders with similar manifestations, and in discriminating among rheumatologic disorders with shared features. The majority of rheumatic diseases are multisystem disorders with poorly understood etiology; they tend to be heterogeneous in their presentation, course, and outcome, and do not have a single clinical, laboratory, pathological, or radiological feature that could serve as a “gold standard” in support of diagnosis and/or classification. Thus, the development of criteria for use in routine clinical care and in clinical research has been an important focus in rheumatology. Improved understanding of disease pathogenesis and new diagnostic tools have led to reexamination of existing classification and diagnostic criteria with updated classification criteria for some diseases being endorsed recently (1, 2). The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Subcommittee on Classification and Response Criteria is responsible for guiding the development and validation of new classification and response criteria that are eventually considered for ACR endorsement. This includes review of proposals for the development of new criteria sets and providing the ACR leadership with recommendations for development and approval of new classification and response criteria sets (1, 3–5). The Subcommittee has previously published a guidance paper for the development of classification and response criteria (6). This prior work has provided details about the rationale for the ACR’s position on classification criteria, but clarification around the issue of diagnostic criteria was lacking. Indeed, the ACR endorsed preliminary diagnostic criteria for fibromyalgia (7) in 2010, which prompted discussions about whether the Subcommittee should also support the development and ACR endorsement of diagnostic criteria, in addition to that of classification and response criteria. The primary objectives of this current article, by former and current members of the Subcommittee on Classification and Response Criteria, are to compare diagnostic and classification criteria, using specific examples from the published literature, and to clarify the ACR’s position on both types of criteria.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/acr.22583

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Classification criteria are primarily intended to create a more homogeneous group of patients for clinical research purposes, thus privileging specificity even at loss of sensitivity.

    “classification criteria are primarily intended to create a more homogeneous group of patients for clinical research purposes [12], thus privileging specificity even at loss of sensitivity.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aggarwal, R., Ringold, S., Khanna, D., Neogi, T., Johnson, S. R., Miller, A., Brunner, H. I., Ogawa, R., Felson, D., Ogdie, A., Aletaha, D., & Feldman, B. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Seattle Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Boston University (US)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
  • American College of Rheumatology (US)
  • Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
Venue
Arthritis Care & Research
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-06-25
Volume
67
Issue
7
Pages
891-897
ISSN
  • 0893-7524 (ISSN-L)
  • 2151-464X
  • 2151-4658
OpenAlex
W2034534130
Cited by
539
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 51 · 2022: 70 · 2021: 75 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 40 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 12 · 2012: 1
FWCI
32.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Arthritis Care & Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (P60AR047785)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Rheumatoid Arthritis Research and Therapies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Musculoskeletal Disorders and Rehabilitation
Keywords
diagnostic criteria, classification criteria, rheumatoid arthritis, disease classification
MeSH terms
Animals, Humans, Rheumatic Diseases, Rheumatology, International Classification of Diseases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review