The DOI matches its Crossref record.
American college of rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis
Abstract
Objective. Trials of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatments report the average response in multiple outcome measures for treated patients. It is more clinically relevant to test whether individual patients improve with treatment, and this identifies a single primary efficacy measure. Multiple definitions of improvement are currently in use in different trials. The goal of this study was to promulgate a single definition for use in RA trials. Methods. Using the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) core set of outcome measures for RA trials, we tested 40 different definitions of improvement, using a 3‐step process. First, we performed a survey of rheumatologists, using actual patient cases from trials, to evaluate which definitions corresponded best to rheumatologists' impressions of improvement, eliminating most candidate definitions of improvement. Second, we tested 20 remaining definitions to determine which maximally discriminated effective treatment from placebo treatment and also minimized placebo response rates. With 8 candidate definitions of improvement remaining, we tested to see which were easiest to use and were best in accord with rheumatologists' impressions of improvement. Results. The following definition of improvement was selected: 20% improvement in tender and swollen joint counts and 20% improvement in 3 of the 5 remaining ACR core set measures: patient and physician global assessments, pain, disability, and an acutephase reactant. Additional validation of this definition was carried out in a comparative trial, and the results suggest that the definition is statistically powerful and does not identify a large percentage of placebo‐treated patients as being improved. Conclusion. We present a definition of improvement which we hope will be used widely in RA trials.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
(2005) · American Journal of Ophthalmology · doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2005.03.057 · Cited by 4,396
Klareskog, L., van der Heijde, D., de Jager, J. P., Gough, A., Kalden, J., Malaise, M., Mola, E. M., Pavelka, K., Sany, J., Settas, L., et al. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)15640-7 · Cited by 1,751
Baricitinib versus Placebo or Adalimumab in Rheumatoid Arthritis
Taylor, P. C., Keystone, E. C., van der Heijde, D., Weinblatt, M. E., del Carmen Morales, L., Reyes Gonzaga, J., Yakushin, S., Ishii, T., Emoto, K., Beattie, S., et al. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1608345 · Cited by 872
Self-citationGenovese, M. C., McKay, J. D., Nasonov, E. L., Mysler, E. F., da Silva, N. A., Alecock, E., Woodworth, T., & Gomez‐Reino, J. J. (2008) · Arthritis & Rheumatism · doi:10.1002/art.23940 · Cited by 855
Jones, G., Sebba, A., Gu, J., Lowenstein, M. B., Calvo, A., Gomez-Reino, J. J., Siri, D. A., Tomšič, M., Alecock, E., Woodworth, T., et al. (2010) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/ard.2008.105197 · Cited by 797
Metadata
- Authors
- Felson, D. T., Anderson, J. J., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., Furst, D., Goldsmith, C., Katz, L. M., Lightfoot, R., Paulus, H., Strand, V., Tugwell, P., Weinblatt, M., James Williams, H., Wolfe, F., & Kieszak, S.
- Venue
- Arthritis & Rheumatism
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1995-06
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 727-735
- ISSN
- 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-0131
- OpenAlex
- W2159106700
- Cited by
- 2,829
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 19.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: American college of rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.1780380602
- The paper
- Felson, D. T., Anderson, J. J., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., Furst, D., Goldsmith, C., Katz, L. M., Lightfoot, R., Paulus, H., Strand, V., Tugwell, P., Weinblatt, M., James Williams, H., Wolfe, F., & Kieszak, S. (1995). American college of rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780380602
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.