4.7 Review

Classification criteria for Sjogren's syndrome: A critical review

期刊

JOURNAL OF AUTOIMMUNITY
卷 39, 期 1-2, 页码 9-14

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2011.12.006

关键词

Sjogren's syndrome; Classification criteria; Diagnosis; Rheumatoid factor

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the years, several different criteria sets have been proposed for the classification of Sjogren's syndrome (SS), but none of them has been widely adopted by the scientific community until the publication of the 1993 Preliminary European Classification criteria. These Classification criteria have been largely employed both in clinical practice and in observational and interventional studies for many years. In 2002 the Preliminary European Criteria were re-examined by a joint American and European Committee. The result of this revision were the American and European Consensus Group classification criteria (AECG-criteria) which introduced more clearly defined rules for classifying patients with primary or secondary SS, and provided more precise exclusion criteria. These AECG-criteria set is now considered to be valid to ensure a specific diagnosis of SS by the vast majority of the expert in the field. To date, the AECG-criteria have been cited more than 1.304 in literature and have been used to estimate the point prevalence of the disease in several studies conducted in Greece, UK, Turkey and Norway. However, when employed in epidemiologic studies or in daily practice, the AECG-criteria have demonstrated a higher specificity (75%), but a lesser sensitivity (65.7%) in comparison to the previous Preliminary European criteria, indicating an average prevalence of pSS at similar to 0.2% in the adult population, which is far lower than previously reported. In this paper we will critically analyse the pro and cons of the current AECG-criteria and of the potential usefulness of some potential revisions. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据