ArticleInternal and emergency medicine2015
The challenge of using the rheumatoid arthritis diagnostic criteria in clinical practice.
Article in Internal and emergency medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The current status of anti-citrullinated protein antibodies and citrullinated protein-reactive B cells in the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis.Molecular biology reports · 2022Review
- Multilocular thymic cyst in a patient with preclinical rheumatoid arthritis: A case report.International journal of surgery case reports · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new 2010 ACR/EULAR (American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism) criteria of Rheumatoid Arthritis recently published, have been released to classify and identify patients with early RA who could benefit from early therapy. They recommend anti-citrullinated protein antibody (ACPA) testing as an alternative criterion to Rheumatoid Factor (RF) and ACPA that were introduced together with the other classic criteria in a scoring system. We previously criticized these new criteria because of unavailable specificity and sensibility in the first paper, and the use of ACPA as dichotomous criterion (presence/absent) and alternatives to rheumatoid factor. Our previous work promoted discussion and fostered new research on this issue. By the light of new data, in an effort to improve clinical reasoning, we suggest a more practical probabilistic point of view. In this regard, we analyze the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic studies that evaluate the performance of the 2010 classification criteria. Then, we compare the old and the new classification criteria. Subsequently, we describe the use of likelihood ratios applied to the classification criteria and different cutoff levels of ACPA for decision-making in different setting. Moreover, we define some properties of likelihood ratios and their use for diagnosing or excluding rheumatoid arthritis. We want to share this kind of knowledge within the scientific community because we believe that it can help general practitioners and specialists to recognize early arthritis patients implementing a more efficient probabilistic clinical reasoning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25672833What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.