The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Development and initial validation of the vasculitis damage index for the standardized clinical assessment of damage in the systemic vasculitides
Abstract
Objective. To develop and validate the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) for the standardized clinical assessment of damage in the systemic vasculitides. Methods. Using a nominal group consensus approach, the Birmingham Vasculitis Group generated guiding principles for assessment of damage in all systemic vasculitides. Damage was defined as irreversible change resulting from scars. Consensus principles were developed into the VDI, including guidelines for use, a list of items of damage, and a glossary. Results. For 100 surviving patients with systemic vasculitis, the median VDI score at last observation was 3 (range 0–8). Within the Wegener's granulomatosis subgroup, the median VDI score for 12 non‐survivors was higher than for 47 survivors (non‐survivors median score 7, interquartile range 5–8 versus survivors median score 4, interquartile range 2–5; P = 0.003). VDI scores for 100 patients with systemic vasculitis increased from initial presentation to last observation by a median score of 3 (range 1–4; P < 0.001). The VDI assesses more items and is more sensitive to change than other indices of damage (P < 0.001). Using the VDI, trained observers can produce moderately consistent damage scores. Conclusion. The VDI is a sensitive, reproducible, comprehensive, and credible clinical tool for quantifying damage. The data presented herein should enable further validation and testing of the VDI in specific vasculitic syndromes, and should facilitate the comparison of different therapies.
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
Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide for ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
Stone, J. H., Merkel, P. A., Spiera, R., Seo, P., Langford, C. A., Hoffman, G. S., Kallenberg, C. G. M., St. Clair, E. W., Turkiewicz, A., Tchao, N. K., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0909905 · Cited by 2,762
Rituximab versus Cyclophosphamide in ANCA-Associated Renal Vasculitis
Jones, R. B., Cohen Tervaert, J. W., Hauser, T., Luqmani, R., Morgan, M. D., Peh, C. A., Savage, C. O., Segelmark, M., Tesar, V., van Paassen, P., et al. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0909169 · Cited by 1,748
Self-citationJayne, D., Rasmussen, N., Andrassy, K., Bacon, P., Tervaert, J. W. C., Dadoniené, J., Ekstrand, A., Gaskin, G., Gregorini, G., de Groot, K., et al. (2003) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa020286 · Cited by 1,348
Self-citationRETRACTED: Avacopan for the Treatment of ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
Jayne, D. R. W., Merkel, P. A., Schall, T. J., & Bekker, P. (2021) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa2023386 · Cited by 1,021
RetractedEtanercept plus Standard Therapy for Wegener's Granulomatosis
(2005) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa041884 · Cited by 834
Metadata
- Authors
- Exley, A. R., Bacon, P. A., Luqmani, R. A., Kitas, G. D., Gordon, C., Savage, C. O. S., & Adu, D.
- Venue
- Arthritis & Rheumatism
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1997-02
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 371-380
- ISSN
- 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-0131
- OpenAlex
- W2071333258
- Cited by
- 619
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 5.71
- 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: Development and initial validation of the vasculitis damage index for the standardized clinical assessment of damage in the systemic vasculitides. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/art.1780400222
- The paper
- Exley, A. R., Bacon, P. A., Luqmani, R. A., Kitas, G. D., Gordon, C., Savage, C. O. S., & Adu, D. (1997). Development and initial validation of the vasculitis damage index for the standardized clinical assessment of damage in the systemic vasculitides. Arthritis & Rheumatism. https://doi.org/10.1002/art.1780400222
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.