Cited by 93Systemic Lupus Erythematosus ResearchSystemic Sclerosis and Related DiseasesVasculitis and related conditions

Toward new criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus-a standpoint

Open access
Aringer, M, Dörner, T, Leuchten, N, Johnson, S R·2016·Lupus

Abstract

While clearly different in their aims and means, classification and diagnosis both try to accurately label the disease patients are suffering from. For systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), this is complicated by the multi-organ nature of the disease and by our incomplete understanding of its pathophysiology. Hallmarks of SLE are the presence of antinuclear antibodies (ANA), and multiple immune-mediated organ symptoms that are largely independent. In an attempt to overcome limitations of the current sets of SLE classification criteria, a new four-phase approach is being developed, which is jointly supported by the European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR) and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR). This review attempts to delineate the performance of the current sets of criteria, the reasons for the decision for classification, and not diagnostic, criteria, and to provide a background of the current approach taken.

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 · 10.1177/0961203316644338

Cites

43 of 43 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?

  • Little information is given on the basis for inclusion of the anti-dsDNA test in the criteria, suggesting that this item is largely based on expert opinion.

    “Little information is given on the basis for inclusion of the anti-dsDNA test in the criteria, suggesting that this item is largely based on expert opinion [24,25].”

    From Anti-dsDNA antibodies in the classification criteria of systemic lupus erythematosus (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

    In “SLE classification—the ACR and the SLICC criteria” (pp. 2–3), the paper says that the decisions to allow biopsy-proven lupus nephritis with ANA or anti-dsDNA to suffice for classification, and to require an immunological criterion, were more expert-driven than data-driven. It does not say that inclusion of the anti-dsDNA test itself was largely based on expert opinion; the Introduction (p. 2) also gives sensitivity and specificity estimates for that test. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Positive anti-dsDNA antibodies received the highest Delphi score (8.94) which determined the highest score (6 points) in the weighted scoring of the disease.

    “In fact, positive anti-dsDNA antibodies received the highest Delphi score (8.94) which determined the highest score (6 points) in the weighted scoring of the disease.”

    From Anti-dsDNA antibodies in the classification criteria of systemic lupus erythematosus (2022) · cites this paper as [24]

    The section “A process towards new classification criteria” (p. 5) reports a Delphi exercise that rated candidate SLE criteria, and “SLE diagnosis” (p. 4) discusses anti-dsDNA antibodies as relevant to SLE. But the paper does not give anti-dsDNA a Delphi score of 8.94 or a weight of six points; on p. 5, it says weighting will occur in a later phase. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 35 Leuchten N, Brinks R, Hoyer A, et al . Anti-nuclear antibodies have high sensitivity for systemic lupus erythematosus: Results of a systematic literature review and meta-regression of diagnostic data. Arthritis Rheumatol 2015; 67: #774 (abstract).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Aringer, M., Dörner, T., Leuchten, N., & Johnson, S. R.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus (DE)
  • German Rheumatism Research Centre (DE)
  • Mount Sinai Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Aringer, M
Venue
Lupus
Published
2016-05-31
Volume
25
Issue
8
Pages
805-811
ISSN
  • 0961-2033 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-0962
OpenAlex
W2413629314
Cited by
93
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
1.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lupus (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Qucosa (Saxon State and University Library Dresden) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
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, diagnostic criteria, antinuclear antibodies, multi-organ involvement, ACR/EULAR classification criteria, disease classification
MeSH terms
Antibodies, Antinuclear, Humans, Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic, Mass Screening, Rheumatology, Societies, Medical

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