OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (SLICC/ACR) Damage Index and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) in the assessment of patients with SLE. METHODS: Ten patients with SLE, representing a spectrum of damage and activity, were included. Each patient was examined by 6 of 10 physicians from 5 countries, representing 10 lupus clinics. The SLICC/ACR Damage Index was used to assess accumulated damage, and the SLEDAI was used to assess disease activity. The order of the patients and physicians was randomized according to a Youden square design. RESULTS: The SLICC/ACR Damage Index detected differences among patients (P < 0.001). There was no detectable observer difference (P = 0.933), and there was no order effect (P = 0.261). Similar results were obtained with the SLEDAI. There was concordance in the SLICC/ACR Damage Index among observers, despite a wide spectrum of disease activity detected by the SLEDAI. CONCLUSION: Physicians from different centers are able to assess patients with SLE in a reproducible way, using the SLEDAI to assess disease activity and the SLICC/ACR Damage Index to assess accumulated damage.
OBJECTIVE: To test the reliability of the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics/American College of Rheumatology (SLICC/ACR) Damage Index and the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Disease Activity Index (SLEDAI) in the assessment of patients with SLE. METHODS: Ten patients with SLE, representing a spectrum of damage and activity, were included. Each patient was examined by 6 of 10 physicians from 5 countries, representing 10 lupus clinics. The SLICC/ACR Damage Index was used to assess accumulated damage, and the SLEDAI was used to assess disease activity. The order of the patients and physicians was randomized according to a Youden square design. RESULTS: The SLICC/ACR Damage Index detected differences among patients (P < 0.001). There was no detectable observer difference (P = 0.933), and there was no order effect (P = 0.261). Similar results were obtained with the SLEDAI. There was concordance in the SLICC/ACR Damage Index among observers, despite a wide spectrum of disease activity detected by the SLEDAI. CONCLUSION: Physicians from different centers are able to assess patients with SLE in a reproducible way, using the SLEDAI to assess disease activity and the SLICC/ACR Damage Index to assess accumulated damage.
Authors: María Del Carmen Zamora-Medina; Andrea Hinojosa-Azaola; Carlos A Nuñez-Alvarez; Angel Gabriel Vargas-Ruiz; Juanita Romero-Diaz Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2018-12-04 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: M B Urowitz; D Gladman; D Ibañez; S C Bae; J Sanchez-Guerrero; C Gordon; A Clarke; S Bernatsky; P R Fortin; J G Hanly; D J Wallace; D Isenberg; A Rahman; G S Alarcón; J T Merrill; E Ginzler; M Khamashta; O Nived; G Sturfelt; I N Bruce; K Steinsson; S Manzi; R Ramsey-Goldman; M A Dooley; A Zoma; K Kalunian; M Ramos; R F Van Vollenhoven; C Aranow; T Stoll; M Petri; P Maddison Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2010-06 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Meggan Mackay; Mathew P Bussa; Cynthia Aranow; Aziz M Uluğ; Bruce T Volpe; Patricio T Huerta; Miklos Argyelan; Arthur Mandel; Joy Hirsch; Betty Diamond; David Eidelberg Journal: Mol Med Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 6.354
Authors: April Jorge; Apinya Lertratanakul; Jungwha Lee; William Pearce; David McPherson; Trina Thompson; Emma Barinas-Mitchell; Rosalind Ramsey-Goldman Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Vivian K Kawai; Ingrid Avalos; Annette Oeser; John A Oates; Ginger L Milne; Joseph F Solus; Cecilia P Chung; C Michael Stein Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 4.794