ArticleRMD open2024
The development and initial validation of IgG4-related disease damage index: a consensus report from Chinese IgG4-RD Consortium.
Article in RMD open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Proof-of-concept study: longitudinal immune biomarker signatures in treatment-naïve IgG4-related disease.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Toward audit-ready care in IgG4-related disease: redefining relapse, damage, and access in the biologic era.Rheumatology international · 2026Article
- Immunological Biomarkers to Assess Activity and Treatment Response in IgG4-Related Disease.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Clinical and Pathophysiological Tangles Between Allergy and Autoimmunity: Deconstructing an Old Dichotomic Paradigm.Clinical reviews in allergy & immunology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo develop and conduct an initial validation of the Damage Index for IgG4-related disease (IgG4-RD DI).
methodsA draft of index items for assessing organ damages in patients with IgG4-RD was generated by experts from the Chinese IgG4-RD Consortium (CIC). The preliminary DI was refined using the Delphi method, and a final version was generated by consensus. 40 IgG4-RD cases representing four types of clinical scenarios were then selected, each with two time points of assessment for at least 3 years of follow-up. 48 rheumatologists from 35 hospitals nationwide were invited to evaluate organ damage using the CIC IgG4-RD DI. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the Kendall-W coefficient of concordance (KW) were used to assess the inter-rater reliability. The criterion validity of IgG4-RD DI was tested by calculating the sensitivity and specificity of raters.
resultsIgG4-RD DI is a cumulative index consisting of 14 domains of organ systems, including a total of 39 items. The IgG4-RD DI was capable of distinguishing stable and increased damage across the active disease subgroup and stable disease subgroup. In terms of scores at baseline and later observations by all raters, overall consistency in scores at baseline and later observations by all raters was satisfactory. ICC at the two time points was 0.69 and 0.70, and the KW was 0.74 and 0.73, respectively. In subgroup analysis, ICC and KW in all subgroups were over 0.55 and 0.61, respectively. The analysis of criterion validity showed a good performance with a sensitivity of 0.86 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.88), a specificity of 0.79 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.82) and an area under the curve of 0.88 (95% CI 0.85 to 0.91).
conclusionThe IgG4-RD DI is a useful approach to analyse disease outcomes, and it has good operability and credibility. It is anticipated that the DI will become a useful tool for therapeutic trials and studies of prognosis in patients with IgG4-RD.
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.