Observational studyRMD open2023
Validation of the 2019 EULAR/ACR classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus in an academic tertiary care centre.
Observational study in RMD open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Psychosis in patients with systematic lupus erythematosus: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.Lupus · 2026Pooled it
- Article
- Prognostic Value of the 2019 EULAR/American College of Rheumatology Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Classification Criteria to Renal Response One Year After Treatment in a Cohort With Childhood-Onset Lupus Nephritis.ACR open rheumatology · 2024Article
- A Clinical Picture of Unselected Patients with Systemic Lupus Erythematosus in a Tertiary Hungarian Center-A Spectrum Ranging from Pure Lupus to Overlap Syndromes.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Epidemiology of SLE in Italy: an observational study using a primary care database.Lupus science & medicine · 2024Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the sensitivity and specificity of the 2019 EULAR/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in outpatients at an academic tertiary care centre and to compare them to the 1997 ACR and the 2012 Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics criteria.
methodsProspective and retrospective observational cohort study.
results3377 patients were included: 606 with SLE, 1015 with non-SLE autoimmune-mediated rheumatic diseases (ARD) and 1756 with non-ARD diseases (hepatocellular carcinoma, primary biliary cirrhosis, autoimmune hepatitis). The 2019 criteria were more sensitive than the 1997 criteria (87.0% vs 81.8%), but less specific (98.1% vs 99.5% in the entire cohort and 96.5% vs 98.8% in patients with non-SLE ARD), resulting in Youden Indexes for patients with SLE/non-SLE ARD of 0.835 and 0.806, respectively. The most sensitive items were history of antinuclear antibody (ANA) positivity and detection of anti-double-stranded deoxyribonucleic acid (dsDNA) antibodies. These were also the least specific items. The most specific items were class III/IV lupus nephritis and the combination of low C3 and low C4 complement levels, followed by class II/V lupus nephritis, either low C3 or low C4 complement levels, delirium and psychosis, when these were not attributable to non-SLE causes.
conclusionsIn this cohort from an independent academic medical centre, the sensitivity and specificity of the 2019 lupus classification criteria were confirmed. Overall agreement of the 1997 and the 2019 criteria was very good.
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.