ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
Comparison of agreement between three classification criteria for early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) in Shanxi Province of China.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the agreement between three classification criteria for early rheumatoid arthritis (ERA) in Shanxi Province of China.
methodsPatients whose age was more than 16 years old, disease duration no more than 2 years, and at least one joint swelling and tenderness were enrolled in a multicenter, retrospective cohort. The patients were grouped as RA or non-RA with detailed clinical and laboratory parameters recorded. The sensitivity and specificity of these criteria were compared with McNemar, and the areas under the ROC curves (AUC) were analyzed with MedCalc. The level of agreement between the three classification criteria was analyzed with kappa coefficient.
resultsA total of 834 patients were enrolled, including 596 ERA and 238 non-RA. The sensitivity of ERA criteria (87.1%) was significantly higher than that of the 1987 ACR criteria (50.2%, P < 0.001) and similar to the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria (89.4%, P > 0.05). The specificity of ERA criteria (92.0%) was similar to the 2010 ACR/EULAR (91.2%, P > 0.05) and 1987 ACR criteria (95.8%, P > 0.05). The AUC related to ERA (0.964) was slightly superior to that of 2010 ACR/EULAR (0.962, P > 0.05) and significantly higher than the 1987 ACR criteria (0.898, P < 0.001). The level of agreement between the 1987 ACR and 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria was 0.383; the 2010 ACR/EULAR and ERA criteria were 0.762, while the 1987 ACR and ERA criteria were 0.473.
conclusionThe ERA and 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria were accordant. They identified more ERA patients than did the 1987 criteria. The ERA criteria are more feasible than the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria. Key Points • RA is prone to severe disability and premature mortality. Early diagnosis and intervention are crucial for RA patients. • The 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria only slightly improved the 1987 ACR criteria and are not sufficiently accurate in the early identification of autoantibody-negative RA. • The ERA and 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria were accordant. They identified more patients with ERA than did the 1987 criteria. • ERA criteria are more feasible than the 2010 ACR/EULAR criteria.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41762360What 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.