The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Remission and active disease in rheumatoid arthritis: Defining criteria for disease activity states
Abstract
Objective: Several composite scores are available to assess the activity of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Criteria for remission and active RA based on these continuous scores are important for use in clinical practice and clinical trials. We aimed to reevaluate or to define such criteria for the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) and the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI). Methods: We sampled patient profiles from an observational RA database that included clinical and laboratory variables. Thirty‐five rheumatology experts classified these profiles into 1 of 4 categories: remission, low, moderate, or high disease activity. Cutoff values were estimated by mapping scores on the DAS28 and SDAI to these ratings, and analyses of agreement (kappa statistics) and a diagnostic testing approach (receiver operating characteristic curves) were used to validate the estimates. The final criteria were validated using 2 observational cohorts (a routine cohort of 767 patients and an inception cohort of 91 patients). Results: Results from the 3 analyses were very similar and were integrated. The criteria for separating remission, low, moderate, and high disease activity based on the SDAI were scores of 3.3, 11, and 26, respectively; those based on the DAS28 were scores of 2.4, 3.6, 5.5, respectively. In the routine cohort, these cutoff values showed substantial agreement (weighed κ = 0.70) and discriminated between groups of patients with clearly different functional capacities (P < 0.001). In the inception cohort, these cutoff scores differentiated responders (those with a 20% response on the American College of Rheumatology improvement criteria) from nonresponders (P < 0.01), as well as patients with and without radiologic progression (P < 0.05). Conclusion: New criteria for levels of RA disease activity were determined and internally validated. These criteria, which are based on current and explicit expert judgment, are valuable in this era of rapidly advancing therapeutic approaches.
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
Cites
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
Cited by
Smolen, J. S., Landewé, R., Bijlsma, J., Burmester, G., Chatzidionysiou, K., Dougados, M., Nam, J., Ramiro, S., Voshaar, M., van Vollenhoven, R., et al. (2017) · Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases · doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-210715 · Cited by 2,057
Self-citationThe Definition and Measurement of Disease Modification in Inflammatory Rheumatic Diseases
Aletaha, D., & Smolen, J. S. (2006) · Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America · doi:10.1016/j.rdc.2005.09.005 · Cited by 152
Self-citationErciyas, K., Sezer, U., Üstün, K., Pehlivan, Y., Kısacık, B., Şenyurt, S., Tarakçıoğlu, M., & Onat, A. (2013) · Oral Diseases · doi:10.1111/odi.12017 · Cited by 114
Yavropoulou, M. P., Filippa, M. G., Vlachogiannis, N. I., Fragoulis, G. E., Laskari, K., Mantzou, A., Panopoulos, S., Fanouriakis, A., Bournia, V.-K., Evangelatos, G., et al. (2024) · RMD Open · doi:10.1136/rmdopen-2023-003575 · Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Aletaha, D., Ward, M. M., Machold, K. P., Nell, V. P. K., Stamm, T., & Smolen, J. S.
- Venue
- Arthritis & Rheumatism
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005-09
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2625-2636
- ISSN
- 0004-3591 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-0131
- OpenAlex
- W2099559598
- Cited by
- 542
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 11.27
- 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.