ArticleClinical rheumatology2024
Classifying systemic lupus erythematosus using laboratory items alone: a preliminary study.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2024. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of the SLERPI scoring system as a classification tool in systemic lupus erythematosus and its performance in early disease recognition.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Performance of the Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Risk Probability Index (SLERPI) in a cohort of Colombian population.Clinical rheumatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore the performance of laboratory items alone in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification.
methodsOur cohort consisted of 352 and 385 (control) patients with and without SLE. This study evaluated the performance of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)-1997, Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)-2012, European League Against Rheumatism (EULAR)/ACR-2019, and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Risk Probability Index (SLERPI) using laboratory items alone, including blood and urine test results.
resultsThe median ratio of laboratory items/total items was 66.7%, 75.0%, 60.4%, and 77.4% in ACR-1997, SLICC-2012, EULAR/ACR-2019, and SLERPI, respectively. After including laboratory items alone, the sensitivity of ACR-1997, SLICC-2012, EULAR/ACR-2019, and SLERPI was 31.3% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 26.4%-36.4%), 79.8% (95% CI: 75.3%-83.9%), 75.9% (95% CI: 71.0%-80.2%), and 85.2% (95% CI: 81.1%-88.8%), respectively. We referenced the SLERPI and removed the additional restrictions, i.e., SLICC-2012 criteria only needs to fulfill at least four items (mSLICC-2012) and EULAR/ACR-2019 criteria needs to have ≥ 10 points (mEULAR/ACR-2019) to qualify for SLE classification. The mSLICC-2012 and mEULAR/ACR-2019 criteria, including laboratory items alone, newly identified 13 and 25 patients, respectively. Based on laboratory items alone, the combination of mSLICC-2012, mEULAR/ACR-2019, and SLERPI identified 348 patients with an improved sensitivity of 90.6% (95% CI: 87.1%-93.5%). Patients, who were classified according to the mEULAR/ACR-2019 criteria, all met the other criteria.
conclusionIncorporating laboratory items alone was clinically feasible to help identify SLE. SLERPI and SLICC-2012, using laboratory items alone, were more worthwhile to promote in the clinic compared with EULAR/ACR-2019. Key Points • Laboratory items play a crucial role in the SLE classification criteria, and incorporating laboratory items alone was clinically feasible to help in the identification of SLE. • The SLERPI and SLICC-2012, using laboratory items alone, were more worthwhile to promote in the clinic compared with EULAR/ACR-2019, and the combination of the two could further improve the sensitivity. • The relative simplicity of evaluating laboratory indices may help nonrheumatologists and inexperienced rheumatologists to identify SLE more quickly, thereby reducing the risk of delayed diagnosis in patients.
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.