Cited by 2,677Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesVasculitis and related conditions

2019 European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology Classification Criteria for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus

Open access
Aringer, Martin, Costenbader, Karen, Daikh, David, Brinks, Ralph, Mosca, Marta, Ramsey‐Goldman, Rosalind, Smolen, Josef S., Wofsy, David +56 more·2019·Arthritis & Rheumatology

Abstract

Objective: To develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) jointly supported by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). Methods: This international initiative had four phases. 1) Evaluation of antinuclear antibody (ANA) as an entry criterion through systematic review and meta‐regression of the literature and criteria generation through an international Delphi exercise, an early patient cohort, and a patient survey. 2) Criteria reduction by Delphi and nominal group technique exercises. 3) Criteria definition and weighting based on criterion performance and on results of a multi‐criteria decision analysis. 4) Refinement of weights and threshold scores in a new derivation cohort of 1,001 subjects and validation compared with previous criteria in a new validation cohort of 1,270 subjects. Results: The 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for SLE include positive ANA at least once as obligatory entry criterion; followed by additive weighted criteria grouped in 7 clinical (constitutional, hematologic, neuropsychiatric, mucocutaneous, serosal, musculoskeletal, renal) and 3 immunologic (antiphospholipid antibodies, complement proteins, SLE‐specific antibodies) domains, and weighted from 2 to 10. Patients accumulating ≥10 points are classified. In the validation cohort, the new criteria had a sensitivity of 96.1% and specificity of 93.4%, compared with 82.8% sensitivity and 93.4% specificity of the ACR 1997 and 96.7% sensitivity and 83.7% specificity of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics 2012 criteria. Conclusion: These new classification criteria were developed using rigorous methodology with multidisciplinary and international input, and have excellent sensitivity and specificity. Use of ANA entry criterion, hierarchically clustered, and weighted criteria reflects current thinking about SLE and provides an improved foundation for SLE research.

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.40930

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The EULAR/ACR criteria do not recommend a method.

    “The EULAR/ACR criteria do not recommend a method.”

    From Laboratory evaluation of anti-dsDNA antibodies. (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

    The claim does not specify what kind of method it means. For ANA testing, the paper's Phase Ia section explicitly recommends immunofluorescence on HEp-2 cells or a solid-phase screening immunoassay with equivalent performance. The paper also describes its criteria as a method for classifying SLE. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Positivity for polyreactive aCL antibodies is a classification criterion for APS and SLE.

    “Positivity for polyreactive aCL antibodies is a criterion in the classification of two autoimmune conditions: APS and SLE251,252.”

    From The role of mitochondria in rheumatic diseases (2022) · cites this paper as [251]

    The SLE classification-criteria figure lists anti-cardiolipin antibodies as a weighted antiphospholipid-antibody criterion, alongside other requirements for classifying SLE (page not supplied in our copy). It does not specify polyreactive aCL antibodies. This paper sets out SLE criteria, not APS criteria; the sentence also cites another source for APS. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Anti-dsDNA antibodies are an important laboratory parameter for diagnosis, monitoring and classification of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

    “Antibodies to dsDNA are an important laboratory parameter for diagnosis, monitoring and classification of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).”

    From Laboratory evaluation of anti-dsDNA antibodies. (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

    The Derivation cohort section (page not provided) identifies anti-dsDNA antibodies as SLE-specific antibodies in the classification criteria, supporting the classification part of the claim. The passages do not establish their use for diagnosis or monitoring, so those parts are unsupported by this paper. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Anti-dsDNA testing is an essential part of the diagnosis, classification, and management of SLE.

    “Consequently, anti-dsDNA testing is an essential part of the diagnosis, classification, and management of SLE (2,3,(11)(12)(13)”

    From Anti-dsDNA Testing Specificity for Systemic Lupus Erythematosus: A Systematic Review. (2022) · cites this paper as [2]

    The classification criteria list anti-dsDNA antibodies among the SLE-specific antibodies that contribute to a classification score (Derivation cohort/validation passage; criteria table). That supports their role in classification, but not the claim that testing is essential to diagnosis or management. The paper explicitly says its classification criteria are not designed for diagnosis or treatment decisions (unlabelled concluding passage; page not given). (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The latest EULAR/ACR SLE classification criteria (2019) stated that the test to measure anti-dsDNA autoantibodies should have a specificity of at least 90%.

    “The latest EULAR/ACR SLE classification criteria (2019) stated that the test to measure anti-dsDNA autoantibodies should have a specificity of at least 90% [28].”

    From Laboratory evaluation of anti-dsDNA antibodies. (2022) · cites this paper as [28]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aringer, M., Costenbader, K., Daikh, D., Brinks, R., Mosca, M., Ramsey‐Goldman, R., Smolen, J. S., Wofsy, D., Boumpas, D. T., Kamen, D. L., Jayne, D., Cervera, R., Costedoat‐Chalumeau, N., Diamond, B., Gladman, D. D., Hahn, B., Hiepe, F., Jacobsen, S., Khanna, D., Lerstrøm, K., Massarotti, E., McCune, J., Ruiz‐Irastorza, G., Sanchez‐Guerrero, J., Schneider, M., Urowitz, M., Bertsias, G., Hoyer, B. F., Leuchten, N., Tani, C., Tedeschi, S. K., Touma, Z., Schmajuk, G., Anic, B., Assan, F., Chan, T. M., Clarke, A. E., Crow, M. K., Czirják, L., Doria, A., Graninger, W., Halda‐Kiss, B., Hasni, S., Izmirly, P. M., Jung, M., Kumánovics, G., Mariette, X., Padjen, I., Pego‐Reigosa, J. M., Romero‐Diaz, J., Rúa‐Figueroa Fernández, Í., Seror, R., Stummvoll, G. H., Tanaka, Y., Tektonidou, M. G., Vasconcelos, C., Vital, E. M., Wallace, D. J., Yavuz, S., Meroni, P. L., Fritzler, M. J., Naden, R., Dörner, T., & Johnson, S. R.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • San Francisco VA Medical Center (US)
  • Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf (DE)
  • University of Pisa (IT)
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • Medical University of Vienna (AT)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (GR)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Hospital Clínic de Barcelona (ES)
  • Cochin Hospital Center de référence maladies auto‐immunes et systémiques rares d'île de France Paris France
  • Feinstein Institute for Medical Research (US)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Lupus Europe Essex UK
  • University of the Basque Country (ES)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital/University Health Network University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada and Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán Mexico City Mexico
  • University of Crete (GR)
  • University of Zagreb School of Medicine and University Hospital Center Zagreb Zagreb Croatia
  • Université Paris-Sud (FR)
  • University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • University of Calgary (CA)
  • Hospital for Special Surgery (US)
  • University of Pecs (HU)
  • University of Padua (IT)
  • Medical University of Graz (AT)
  • University of Pécs Pécs Hungary
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • AP‐HP, Hôpitaux universitaires Paris‐Sud – Hôpital Bicêtre and Université Paris‐Sud INSERM UMR 1184 Université Paris‐Saclay Le Kremlin Bicêtre France
  • University Hospital Centre Zagreb (HR)
  • University Hospital of Vigo IRIDIS Group Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Galicia Sur (IISGS) Vigo Spain
  • Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán Mexico City Mexico
  • Doctor Negrín University Hospital Las Palmas de Gran Canaria Las Palmas Spain
  • Université Paris Sud Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris‐Sud, AP‐HP, INSERM 1184 Le Kremlin‐Bicêtre France
  • University of Occupational and Environmental Health Japan (JP)
  • Universidade do Porto (PT)
  • University of Leeds (GB)
  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (US)
  • Istanbul Bilim University Istanbul Turkey
  • IRCCS Istituto Auxologico Italiano (IT)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Aringer, Martin
  • Johnson, Sindhu R.
Venue
Arthritis & Rheumatology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-08-06
Volume
71
Issue
9
Pages
1400-1412
ISSN
  • 2326-5191 (ISSN-L)
  • 2326-5205
OpenAlex
W2965565685
Cited by
2,677
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 428 · 2025: 497 · 2024: 447 · 2023: 420 · 2022: 367 · 2021: 301 · 2020: 184 · 2019: 27 · 2017: 1 · 2013: 2
FWCI
166.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Arthritis & Rheumatology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • European League Against Rheumatism
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases
  • National Institutes of Health
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rheumatology › Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Systemic Sclerosis and Related Diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Vasculitis and related conditions
Keywords
systemic lupus erythematosus, classification criteria, antinuclear antibodies, weighted criteria, multi-criteria decision making, antiphospholipid antibodies, complement proteins, sensitivity and specificity, SLICC 2012 criteria
MeSH terms
Adult, Antibodies, Antinuclear, Autoantibodies, Complement System Proteins, Decision Support Techniques, Delphi Technique, Europe, Female, Humans, International Cooperation, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Male, Middle Aged, Rheumatology, Sensitivity and Specificity, Societies, Medical, United States, Cohort Studies, Antibodies, Antiphospholipid

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