ArticleClinical rheumatology2024
Performance of existing diagnostic criteria for palindromic rheumatism.
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 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.
- Palindromic Rheumatism: Revisiting the Approach to an Enigmatic Condition.International journal of rheumatic diseases · 2026Article
- Association between body mass index and palindromic rheumatism risk and outcomes: a case-control study.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Molecular analysis of TNFAIP3, PTPN22, IRF5, and IL-10 gene polymorphisms in palindromic rheumatism.Clinical rheumatology · 2025Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFour criteria have been proposed for the diagnosis of palindromic rheumatism (PR), including those of Hannonen et al., Passero and Barbieri, Guerne and Weisman, and Gonzalez-López. But none of these criteria has been validated. In this research, we investigated the performance of these diagnostic criteria for diagnosing PR.
methodsIn this study, PR and control groups were consecutively recruited from a prospective cohort of intermittent arthritis. Inclusion criteria for PR group were diagnosing PR by an expert rheumatologist, age ≥ 18, having at least 6 months follow-up, and ruling out of other causes of intermittent arthritis. These criteria were applied to both groups. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and Youden's index were calculated for each criteria.
resultsThis study included 197 consecutive subjects diagnosed with PR and 208 subjects with a diagnosis other than PR. The sensitivity of Hannonen et al. criteria was higher than the Gonzalez-Lopez, Guerne and Weisman, and Pasero and Barbieri criteria (96.4% versus 95.4%, 79.2%, and 35.5%, respectively). The specificity of the Pasero and Barbieri criteria was higher than the other criteria. Hannonen al. criteria with a DOR of 325.7, had the highest DOR. In descending order, the best accuracy belonged to Hannonen et al., Gonzalez-Lopez, Guerne and Weisman, and Pasero and Barbieri criteria (94.3%, 94.1%, 86.4%, and 66.9% respectively).
conclusionThis study showed that the Hannonen et al. and Gonzalez-Lopez criteria have a better performance in diagnosing PR. Key Points • The sensitivity of Hannonen et al. criteria and the specifity of Passero and Barbieri criteria are higher than other proposed criteria for diagnosis of palindromic rheumatism. • Hannonen et al. criteria with a sensitivity of 96.4%, specifity of 92.3% and accuracy of 94.3% has the best performance in diagnosis of palindromic rheumatism between existing diagnostic criteria for palindromic rheumatism.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38775869What 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.