Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,829

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

American college of rheumatology preliminary definition of improvement in rheumatoid arthritis

Felson, David T., Anderson, Jennifer J., Boers, Maarten, Bombardier, Claire, Furst, Daniel, Goldsmith, Charles, Katz, Linda M., Lightfoot, Robert, Paulus, Harold, Strand, Vibeke, Tugwell, Peter, Weinblatt, Michael, James Williams, H., Wolfe, Frederick, Kieszak, Stephanie·1995·Arthritis & Rheumatism

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.1780380602

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.

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

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

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

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.