Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 636

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

BILAG 2004. Development and initial validation of an updated version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group's disease activity index for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus

Open access
Isenberg, D. A., Rahman, A., Allen, E., Farewell, V., Akil, M., Bruce, I. N., D'Cruz, D., Griffiths, B., Khamashta, M., Maddison, P., McHugh, N., Snaith, M., Teh, L. S., Yee, C. S., Zoma, A., Gordon, C.·2005·Rheumatology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To devise a more discriminating version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG) disease activity index and to show that it is reliable. METHODS: A nominal consensus approach was undertaken by members of BILAG to update and improve the BILAG lupus disease activity index. The index has been revised following intense consultations over a 1-yr period. It has been assessed in two real-patient exercises. These involved patients with diverse clinical features of SLE, including gastrointestinal, hepatic and ophthalmic problems, which the earlier versions of the index did not fully take into account. Reliability in terms of the ability to differentiate patients was assessed by calculating intraclass correlation coefficients. The level of agreement between physicians was determined by calculating the ratio of estimates of the standard error (SE) attributable to the physicians to the SE attributable to the patients. RESULTS: Good reliability and high levels of physician agreement were observed in one or both exercises in the constitutional, mucocutaneous, neurological, cardiorespiratory, renal, ophthalmic and haematological systems. In contrast, the musculoskeletal system did not score as well, although providing more clear-cut glossary definitions should greatly improve the situation. CONCLUSIONS: Some significant changes in the BILAG disease activity index to assess patients with SLE are proposed. The process of demonstrating validity and reliability has started with these two exercises assessing real patients. Further validation studies are under way. BILAG 2004 is likely to be valuable in clinical trials assessing new therapies for the treatment of SLE, as it provides a more comprehensive system-based disease activity measure than has been available previously.

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 · 10.1093/rheumatology/keh624

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 636

Metadata

Authors
Isenberg, D. A., Rahman, A., Allen, E., Farewell, V., Akil, M., Bruce, I. N., D'Cruz, D., Griffiths, B., Khamashta, M., Maddison, P., McHugh, N., Snaith, M., Teh, L. S., Yee, C. S., Zoma, A., & Gordon, C.
Venue
Rheumatology
Published
2005-04-06
Volume
44
Issue
7
Pages
902-906
ISSN
  • 1462-0324 (ISSN-L)
  • 1462-0332
OpenAlex
W2168146874
Cited by
636
References
1
FWCI
3.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: BILAG 2004. Development and initial validation of an updated version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group's disease activity index for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/rheumatology/keh624
The paper
Isenberg, D. A., Rahman, A., Allen, E., Farewell, V., Akil, M., Bruce, I. N., D'Cruz, D., Griffiths, B., Khamashta, M., Maddison, P., McHugh, N., Snaith, M., Teh, L. S., Yee, C. S., Zoma, A., & Gordon, C. (2005). BILAG 2004. Development and initial validation of an updated version of the British Isles Lupus Assessment Group's disease activity index for patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology. https://doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/keh624

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.