ArticleRMD open2026
Comparative evaluation of disease activity measures for adult-onset Still's disease: a multicentre, retrospective, cohort study.
Article in RMD open, 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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo comparatively evaluate recent adult-onset Still's disease (AOSD) activity measures-Development and Validation of Disease Activity in AOSD (DAVID), Still's Disease Activity Score (SDAS), Still Activity Score (SAS) with Pouchot's Systemic Score (PSS) in an independent multicentre cohort.
methodsDAVID and SDAS were modified (m) by omitting global assessments due to availability and to circumvent incorporation bias. Criterion validity was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis against the treating physician's determination of disease activity (active vs inactive). Responsiveness was evaluated by comparing mean change in scores between remission and active disease, and Cohen's d. Longitudinal sensitivity to change was assessed using linear mixed-effects models with z-standardised scores and marginal R². Primary analysis uses imputed data, with complete-case sensitivity analysis.
resultsThe cohort comprised 86 patients with initially active AOSD (64% female; mean age 39.4±15.0 years). In ROC analyses, mSDAS, mDAVID and SAS showed comparable area under the curves (0.69, 0.68 and 0.68, respectively), whereas PSS had a lower AUC (0.60). Responsiveness was greatest for mDAVID (Cohen's d 0.76 (95% CI 0.30 to 1.20)), followed by mSDAS (0.61 (0.13 to 1.1)), SAS (0.46 (-0.01 to 0.90)) and PSS (0.22 (-0.30 to 0.68)). Longitudinal sensitivity to change, quantified by marginal R², was highest for mDAVID (0.65 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.70)), followed by mSDAS (0.61 (0.55 to 0.67)), PSS (0.61 (0.54 to 0.67)) and SAS (0.55 (0.45 to 0.64)). Sensitivity analyses using complete cases yielded similar results.
conclusionmDAVID and mSDAS demonstrated the most favourable and largely comparable performance profiles across the evaluated metrics, with mDAVID showing greater responsiveness and mSDAS demonstrating a stronger correlation with the articular disease domain. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN86135778.
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.