4.5 Article

Performance of the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism Classification Criteria for Systemic Sclerosis (SSc) in Large, Well-defined Cohorts of SSc and Mixed Connective Tissue Disease

期刊

JOURNAL OF RHEUMATOLOGY
卷 42, 期 1, 页码 60-63

出版社

J RHEUMATOL PUBL CO
DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.140047

关键词

SYSTEMIC SCLEROSIS; CONNECTIVE TISSUE DISEASES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; AUTOIMMUNE DISEASES

资金

  1. Norwegian Women's Public Health Association
  2. Norwegian Rheumatology Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. To assess the 2013 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism (ACR/EULAR) Classification Criteria for Systemic Sclerosis (SSc) on defined subgroups of SSc and in mixed connective tissue disease (MCTD) as an SSc-related disease. Methods. The 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria were assessed in 425 consecutive patients suspected to have SSc and seen at Oslo University Hospital, and in the nationwide Norwegian MCTD cohort (n = 178). In the SSc group, 239/425 patients had disease duration < 3 years (in 82 of these, duration was < 1 yr). Patients were subgrouped as limited SSc (n = 294), diffuse SSc (n = 97), SSc sine scleroderma (n = 10), and early SSc (prescleroderma; n = 24). Item data were complete, except nailfold capillaroscopy and telangiectasia results, missing in the MCTD cohort. Results. The 2013 ACR/EULAR SSc criteria were met by 409/425 patients (96%) in the SSc group. For comparison, only 75% (293/391) met the 1980 ACR SSc classification criteria. All the novel items in the 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria were frequent in the SSc cohort. Considering that there were missing data on 2 items, 10% (18/178) of the MCTD cohort met the 2013 ACR/EULAR criteria, giving an estimated specificity of 90% toward this SSc-like disorder. Conclusion. In our large and representative group of consecutive patients with SSc, the 2013 ACR/EULAR SSc criteria were more sensitive than the ACR 1980 criteria. However, the new criteria did not completely segregate SSc from MCTD, making specificity a potential issue.

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

4.5
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