Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 2,237

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

revision of diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis

·2001·Classic Papers in Rheumatology

Abstract

A committee chaired by Marion Ropes was appointed by the ARA to define criteria best suited to define RA. A number of physicians ‘particularly interested in rheumatic diseases in various sections of the United States and Canada’ were asked to each contribute data from their clinics of the five most recent patients with definite RA, five recent patients with probable RA and five patients with no evidence of RA. In all 332 patients were analysed for presence of 11 criteria that had been selected on the basis of clinical experience by the authors. Sensitivity and specificity was calculated for presence of five or more criteria (definite disease), 3-4 criteria (probable disease), and less than 3 of the 11 criteria (no disease). In order to avoid inclusion of false positives, 19 exclusions were also listed.

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 · 10.3109/9780203214237-47

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.

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

Cited by

See all 2,237

Metadata

Venue
Classic Papers in Rheumatology
Publisher
CRC Press
Published
2001-12-06
Volume
9
Issue
4
Pages
94-95
OpenAlex
W2429542833
Cited by
2,237
References
0
FWCI
24.44
Type
book chapter
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: revision of diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3109/9780203214237-47
The paper
revision of diagnostic criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. (2001). Classic Papers in Rheumatology. https://doi.org/10.3109/9780203214237-47

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.