OBJECTIVE: The Cutaneous Assessment Tool (CAT) is a comprehensive, semiquantitative tool for the assessment of skin disease in juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). The goal of this study was to determine whether alternative scoring methods would shorten the CAT without compromising its measurement characteristics. METHODS: A total of 113 children with juvenile DM were assessed at baseline; 94 were assessed again 7-9 months later. Interrater reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness were obtained using the original scoring method and 2 alternative methods: the maximum and binary scoring methods. RESULTS: Spearman's correlations of the maximum and binary methods with the original were both 0.98 (P < 0.0001) for the CAT activity score, and 0.96 and 0.98, respectively (P < 0.0001), for the CAT damage score. Values obtained for interrater reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness were similar for all 3 scoring methods. Although there was a trend toward the maximum method having higher interrater reliability and the binary method having higher responsiveness, the confidence intervals were overlapping and no statistically significant differences were observed. Correlation coefficients for the 3 scoring methods with other measures of myositis disease activity and damage were very similar. CONCLUSION: The maximum and binary methods of scoring the CAT have measurement characteristics similar to the original method. Adoption of one of these abbreviated scoring methods should increase its acceptability to clinicians and researchers.
OBJECTIVE: The Cutaneous Assessment Tool (CAT) is a comprehensive, semiquantitative tool for the assessment of skin disease in juvenile dermatomyositis (DM). The goal of this study was to determine whether alternative scoring methods would shorten the CAT without compromising its measurement characteristics. METHODS: A total of 113 children with juvenile DM were assessed at baseline; 94 were assessed again 7-9 months later. Interrater reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness were obtained using the original scoring method and 2 alternative methods: the maximum and binary scoring methods. RESULTS: Spearman's correlations of the maximum and binary methods with the original were both 0.98 (P < 0.0001) for the CAT activity score, and 0.96 and 0.98, respectively (P < 0.0001), for the CAT damage score. Values obtained for interrater reliability, internal consistency, construct validity, and responsiveness were similar for all 3 scoring methods. Although there was a trend toward the maximum method having higher interrater reliability and the binary method having higher responsiveness, the confidence intervals were overlapping and no statistically significant differences were observed. Correlation coefficients for the 3 scoring methods with other measures of myositis disease activity and damage were very similar. CONCLUSION: The maximum and binary methods of scoring the CAT have measurement characteristics similar to the original method. Adoption of one of these abbreviated scoring methods should increase its acceptability to clinicians and researchers.
Authors: A M Huber; J E Hicks; P A Lachenbruch; M D Perez; L S Zemel; R M Rennebohm; C A Wallace; C B Lindsley; M H Passo; S H Ballinger; S L Bowyer; A M Reed; P H White; I M Katona; F W Miller; L G Rider; B M Feldman Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2001-05 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: A M Huber; B Lang; C M LeBlanc; N Birdi; R K Bolaria; P Malleson; I MacNeil; J A Momy; G Avery; B M Feldman Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2000-03
Authors: D J Lovell; C B Lindsley; R M Rennebohm; S H Ballinger; S L Bowyer; E H Giannini; J E Hicks; J E Levinson; R Mier; L M Pachman; M H Passo; M D Perez; A M Reed; K N Schikler; M Smith; L S Zemel; L G Rider Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1999-10
Authors: Jennifer L Hundley; Christie L Carroll; Wei Lang; Beverly Snively; Gil Yosipovitch; Steven R Feldman; Joseph L Jorizzo Journal: J Am Acad Dermatol Date: 2005-12-02 Impact factor: 11.527
Authors: Adam M Huber; Brian M Feldman; Robert M Rennebohm; Jeanne E Hicks; Carol B Lindsley; Maria D Perez; Lawrence S Zemel; Carol A Wallace; Susan H Ballinger; Murray H Passo; Ann M Reed; Ronald M Summers; Patience H White; Ildy M Katona; Frederick W Miller; Peter A Lachenbruch; Lisa G Rider Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-05
Authors: A M Huber; E M Dugan; P A Lachenbruch; B M Feldman; M D Perez; L S Zemel; C B Lindsley; R M Rennebohm; C A Wallace; M H Passo; A M Reed; S L Bowyer; S H Ballinger; F W Miller; L G Rider Journal: Rheumatology (Oxford) Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 7.580
Authors: L G Rider; B M Feldman; M D Perez; R M Rennebohm; C B Lindsley; L S Zemel; C A Wallace; S H Ballinger; S L Bowyer; A M Reed; M H Passo; I M Katona; F W Miller; P A Lachenbruch Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 1997-11
Authors: Adam M Huber; Elizabeth M Dugan; Peter A Lachenbruch; Brian M Feldman; Maria D Perez; Lawrence S Zemel; Carol B Lindsley; Robert M Rennebohm; Carol A Wallace; Murray H Passo; Ann M Reed; Suzanne L Bowyer; Susan H Ballinger; Frederick W Miller; Lisa G Rider Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2008-02-15
Authors: J Tiao; R Feng; E M Berger; J F Brandsema; C C Coughlin; N Khan; E A Kichula; M A Lerman; S Lvovich; P J McMahon; L G Rider; A I Rubin; L V Scalzi; D M Smith; A J Taxter; J R Treat; R P Williams; S W Yum; J Okawa; V P Werth Journal: Br J Dermatol Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 9.302
Authors: Renato Goreshi; Joyce Okawa; Matt Rose; Rui Feng; Lela A Lee; Christopher B Hansen; Carolyn A Bangert; M Kari Connolly; Mark D Davis; Jeff P Callen; Nicole M Fett; Steven S Fakharzadeh; Jennie T Clarke; Victoria P Werth Journal: J Invest Dermatol Date: 2012-01-05 Impact factor: 8.551