Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30496561›Full record

ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2019

The performance of the European League Against Rheumatism/American College of Rheumatology idiopathic inflammatory myopathies classification criteria in an expert-defined 10 year incident cohort.

Matthew J S Parker, Alexander Oldroyd, Mark E Roberts, James B Lilleker, Zoe E Betteridge, Neil J McHugh, Ariane L Herrick, Robert G Cooper, Hector Chinoy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Rheumatic disease spectrum and immunological profile of anti-PM/Scl antibodies in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Matthew J S ParkerRheumatology Department, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Salford, UK.
Alexander OldroydCentre for Musculoskeletal Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Mark E RobertsManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Greater Manchester Neurosciences Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
James B LillekerManchester Academic Health Science Centre, Greater Manchester Neurosciences Centre, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Salford, UK.
Zoe E BetteridgeDepartment of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Neil J McHughDepartment of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, University of Bath, Bath, UK.
Ariane L HerrickRheumatology Department, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Salford, UK.
Robert G CooperMRC-ARUK Centre for Integrated Research into Musculoskeletal Ageing, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, UK.
Hector ChinoyRheumatology Department, Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Salford, UK.

Funding

Arthritis Research UK 18474Medical Research Council MR/N003322/1Versus Arthritis 18474
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo assess the performance of the EULAR/ACR idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIMs) classification criteria in a cohort of incident IIM cases and examine how criteria-assigned IIM subtype correlates with expert opinion.

methodsAdults with newly diagnosed IIM attending Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust were identified over a 10 year period. A retrospective review of all putative cases was performed and those fulfilling a consensus expert opinion diagnosis of IIM were included. Clinical, serological and histological data were collected and each case was assigned a single IIM subtype. The EULAR/ACR classification criteria were then applied and sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values were calculated, presented with 95% CIs.

resultsA total of 1637 cases were screened, with 255 consensus expert opinion IIM cases ultimately identified. Applying the EULAR/ACR classification criteria, the sensitivity to diagnose an IIM was 99.6% (95% CI 97.2, 100) and 80.9% (95% CI 76.0, 85.8) for the criteria cut-points of probable and definite diagnoses, respectively. In 94/255 cases the IIM subtype differed between consensus expert opinion and classification criteria, most strikingly in the group subtyped as PM by the EULAR/ACR criteria, where there was discrepancy in the majority (i.e. in 87/161).

conclusionThe EULAR/ACR criteria performed with high sensitivity in identifying IIM in this external cohort of incident IIM. However, substantial disagreements arose between consensus expert opinion and the criteria regarding IIM subtype assignments, resulting in a large proportion of criteria-assigned cases of PM having heterogeneous features. These results may have important implications for future use of these criteria in subsequent research.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMyositisSensitivity and SpecificityYoung Adultclassificationdermatomyositisidiopathic inflammatory myopathiesinclusion body myositismyositispolymyositis

Identifiers

PMID30496561
PMCPMC6381759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.