Cited by 759Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesReliability and Agreement in Measurement

The reliability of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology Damage Index in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Gladman, Dafna D., Urowitz, Murray B., Goldsmith, Charles H., Fortin, Paul, Ginzler, Ellen, Gordon, Caroline, Hanly, John G., Isenberg, David A. +6 more·1997·Arthritis & Rheumatism

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (SLICC/ACR) Damage Index and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) in the assessment of patients with SLE. METHODS: Ten patients with SLE, representing a spectrum of damage and activity, were included. Each patient was examined by 6 of 10 physicians from 5 countries, representing 10 lupus clinics. The SLICC/ACR Damage Index was used to assess accumulated damage, and the SLEDAI was used to assess disease activity. The order of the patients and physicians was randomized according to a Youden square design. RESULTS: The SLICC/ACR Damage Index detected differences among patients (P < 0.001). There was no detectable observer difference (P = 0.933), and there was no order effect (P = 0.261). Similar results were obtained with the SLEDAI. There was concordance in the SLICC/ACR Damage Index among observers, despite a wide spectrum of disease activity detected by the SLEDAI. CONCLUSION: Physicians from different centers are able to assess patients with SLE in a reproducible way, using the SLEDAI to assess disease activity and the SLICC/ACR Damage Index to assess accumulated damage.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/art.1780400506

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gladman, D. D., Urowitz, M. B., Goldsmith, C. H., Fortin, P., Ginzler, E., Gordon, C., Hanly, J. G., Isenberg, D. A., Kalunian, K., Nived, O., Petri, M., Sanchez‐Guerrero, J., Snaith, M., & Sturfelt, G.
Affiliations
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Montreal General Hospital (CA)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • University College London (GB)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Skåne University Hospital (SE)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Sheffield (GB)
Venue
Arthritis & Rheumatism
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1997-05
Volume
40
Issue
5
Pages
809-813
ISSN
  • 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-0131
OpenAlex
W2022070992
Cited by
759
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 28
FWCI
5.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Arthritis & Rheumatism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
Keywords
systemic lupus erythematosus, SLICC/ACR damage index, SLEDAI, disease activity assessment, damage assessment, inter-rater reliability, interobserver agreement, order effects
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Middle Aged, Severity of Illness Index, Reproducibility of Results

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