ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
Validation of the 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis in a Chinese cohort.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the performance of the 2022 American College of Rheumatology/European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology (ACR/EULAR) classification criteria for eosinophilic granulomatosis with polyangiitis (EGPA) in a multicenter cohort in Eastern China and compare it against the 1990 ACR and 2017 mepolizumab in relapsing or refractory EGPA (MIRRA) criteria.
methodsEGPA patients diagnosed between January 2018 and March 2025 were included in the study, and the diagnosis by "an expert panel" was used as the gold standard. The sensitivity, specificity, positive/negative predictive value (PPV, NPV), accuracy and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of three sets of classification criteria (1990 ACR, 2017 MIRRA and 2022 ACR/EULAR) were evaluated.
resultsA total of 96 EGPA patients and 163 controls including 91 cases of other types of vasculitis and 72 cases of eosinophilic disorders were enrolled. 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria had the highest sensitivity of 87.5% and accuracy of 94.2% compared with 1990 ACR and 2017 MIRRA criteria. However, the specificity (98.2%) was slightly lower than that of the 1990 ACR and 2017 MIRRA criteria in the entire control. Thirty-five patients (36.5%) fulfilled all three criteria. The most sensitive item was eosinophilia (eosinophil ratio > 10% or count ≥ 1 × 10
conclusionThe 2022 ACR/EULAR classification criteria demonstrated significant improvement in sensitivity and accuracy while maintaining a relatively high level of specificity. It is noticing that these criteria should not be used for the diagnosis of EGPA. Key Points • 2022 ACR/EULAR EGPA classification criteria were validated in a cohort of China. • 2022 ACR/EULAR criteria had higher sensitivity and accuracy compared to 1990 ACR criteria and 2017 MIRRA criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41627714What 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.