ArticleClinical rheumatology2016
Comparison of three classification criteria of rheumatoid arthritis in an inception early arthritis cohort.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of agreement between three classification criteria for early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) in Shanxi Province of China.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- 2018 Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.Rheumatology and immunology research · 2021Article
- [Multicenter performance of the different classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 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
19 authors at 10 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to compare the three classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in a large cohort of early arthritis patients. Patients who had at least one clinically swollen joint with disease duration no more than 1 year and age more than 18 years were enrolled. The clinical and laboratory parameters were recorded. The patients were diagnosed by two experienced rheumatologists. Undiagnosed patients were followed up every 3 months until 1 year. The sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value were compared among the early RA (ERA) criteria, the 1987 ACR criteria, and the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria in this inception cohort of early arthritis patients. A total of 417 patients with inflammatory arthritis were recruited. By the end of 1 year follow-up, there were 399 patients (95.7 %) with a definitive diagnosis and 18 (4.3 %) patients remained as undifferentiated arthritis. Among the patients with definitive diagnosis, 202 (50.6 %) patients were diagnosed with RA and 197 (49.4 %) with non-RA. The sensitivity of ERA criteria was equal to 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria (both were 72.3 %), but much higher than 1987 ACR criteria (72.3 vs. 39.1 %, P < 0.001); the specificity of ERA criteria was comparable to 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria (87.8 vs. 83.2 %) and slightly lower than 1987 ACR criteria (87.8 vs. 92.4 %, P < 0.001). Unlike the complicated scoring system of 2010 criteria, the ERA criteria were more feasible to use in practice with five criteria only. The ERA criteria have a high sensitivity and more clinically feasibility in daily practice for early RA diagnosis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.