The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report

Objective The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism have developed new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of Phase 2 of the development process was to achieve expert consensus on the clinical and laboratory variables that should contribute to the final criteria set. Methods Twenty-four expert RA clinicians (12 from Europe and 12 from North America) participated in Phase 2. A consensus-based decision analysis approach was used to identify factors (and their relative weights) that influence the probability of “developing RA,” complemented by data from the Phase 1 study. Patient case scenarios were used to identify and reach consensus on factors important in determining the probability of RA development. Decision analytic software was used to derive the relative weights for each of the factors and their categories, using choice-based conjoint analysis. Results The expert panel agreed that the new classification criteria should be applied to individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis in whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis. In this clinical setting, they identified 4 additional criteria as being important: number of joints involved and site of involvement, serologic abnormality, acute-phase response, and duration of symptoms in the involved joints. These criteria were consistent with those identified in the Phase 1 data-driven approach. Conclusion The consensus-based, decision analysis approach used in Phase 2 complemented the Phase 1 efforts. The 4 criteria and their relative weights form the basis of the final criteria set.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78048/1/27580_ftp.pd

2010 Rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: An American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative

Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly, the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticized for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. Methods A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in 3 phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease—this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct “rheumatoid arthritis.” Results In the new criteria set, classification as “definite RA” is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least 1 joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis that better explains the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in 4 domains: number and site of involved joints (score range 0–5), serologic abnormality (score range 0–3), elevated acute-phase response (score range 0–1), and symptom duration (2 levels; range 0–1). Conclusion This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimize the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct “rheumatoid arthritis.”Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78045/1/27584_ftp.pd

Multicriteria decision analysis process to develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus.

European League Against Rheumatism and are jointly supporting multiphase development of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria based on weighted criteria and a continuous probability scale. Prior steps included item generation, item reduction and hierarchical organisation of candidate criteria using an evidence-based approach. Our objectives were to determine relative weights using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to set a provisional threshold score for SLE classification. An SLE Expert Panel (8 European, 9 North American) submitted 164 real, unique cases with a wide range of SLE probability in a standardised format. Using the candidate criteria, experts scored and rank-ordered 20 representative cases. At an in-person meeting, experts reviewed inter-rater reliability of scoring, further refined criteria definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise. Based on expert consensus decisions on pairwise comparisons of criteria, 1000minds software calculated criteria weights and rank-ordered the remaining 144 cases based on their additive scores. The score of the lowest-ranked case for which complete expert consensus was achieved defined the provisional threshold classification score. Inter-rater reliability of scoring cases with the candidate criteria was good. MCDA involved 74 pairwise decisions and was repeated for the arthritis and mucocutaneous domains when the initial ranking of some cases did not match expert opinion. After criteria weights and additive scores were recalculated once, experts reached consensus for SLE classification for all cases scoring>83. Using an iterative process, the candidate criteria definitions were refined, preliminary weights were calculated and a provisional threshold score for SLE classification was determined

Multicriteria decision analysis process to develop new classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus.

European League Against Rheumatism and are jointly supporting multiphase development of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria based on weighted criteria and a continuous probability scale. Prior steps included item generation, item reduction and hierarchical organisation of candidate criteria using an evidence-based approach. Our objectives were to determine relative weights using multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) and to set a provisional threshold score for SLE classification. An SLE Expert Panel (8 European, 9 North American) submitted 164 real, unique cases with a wide range of SLE probability in a standardised format. Using the candidate criteria, experts scored and rank-ordered 20 representative cases. At an in-person meeting, experts reviewed inter-rater reliability of scoring, further refined criteria definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise. Based on expert consensus decisions on pairwise comparisons of criteria, 1000minds software calculated criteria weights and rank-ordered the remaining 144 cases based on their additive scores. The score of the lowest-ranked case for which complete expert consensus was achieved defined the provisional threshold classification score. Inter-rater reliability of scoring cases with the candidate criteria was good. MCDA involved 74 pairwise decisions and was repeated for the arthritis and mucocutaneous domains when the initial ranking of some cases did not match expert opinion. After criteria weights and additive scores were recalculated once, experts reached consensus for SLE classification for all cases scoring>83. Using an iterative process, the candidate criteria definitions were refined, preliminary weights were calculated and a provisional threshold score for SLE classification was determined

The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism have developed new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of Phase 2 of the development process was to achieve expert consensus on the clinical and laboratory variables that should contribute to the final criteria set. METHODS: Twenty-four expert RA clinicians (12 from Europe and 12 from North America) participated in Phase 2. A consensus-based decision analysis approach was used to identify factors (and their relative weights) that influence the probability of developing RA, complemented by data from the Phase 1 study. Patient case scenarios were used to identify and reach consensus on factors important in determining the probability of RA development. Decision analytic software was used to derive the relative weights for each of the factors and their categories, using choice-based conjoint analysis. RESULTS: The expert panel agreed that the new classification criteria should be applied to individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis in whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis. In this clinical setting, they identified 4 additional criteria as being important: number of joints involved and site of involvement, serologic abnormality, acute-phase response, and duration of symptoms in the involved joints. These criteria were consistent with those identified in the Phase 1 data-driven approach. CONCLUSION: The consensus-based, decision analysis approach used in Phase 2 complemented the Phase 1 efforts. The 4 criteria and their relative weights form the basis of the final criteria set

Identifying potential classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD): Item generation and item reduction:Item Generation and Item Reduction

Abstract Objective Classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) will facilitate clinical research on this common crystalline arthritis. We report on the first two phases of a four-phase process for developing CPPD classification criteria. Methods CPPD classification criteria development is overseen by a 12-member Steering Committee. Item generation (Phase I) included a scoping literature review of five literature databases and contributions from a 35-member Combined Expert Committee and two Patient Research Partners. Item reduction and refinement (Phase II) involved a Combined Expert Committee meeting, discussions among Clinical, Imaging, and Laboratory Advisory Groups, and an item rating exercise to assess the influence of individual items toward classification. The Steering Committee reviewed the modal rating score for each item (range -3 [strongly pushes away from CPPD] to +3 [strongly pushes toward CPPD]) to determine items to retain for future phases of criteria development. Results Item generation yielded 420 items (312 from the literature, 108 from experts/patients). The Advisory Groups eliminated items they agreed were unlikely to distinguish between CPPD and other forms of arthritis, yielding 127 items for the item rating exercise. Fifty-six items, most of which had a modal rating of +/- 2 or 3, were retained for future phases. As numerous imaging items were rated +3, the Steering Committee recommended focusing on imaging of the knee, wrist, and one additional affected joint for calcification suggestive of CPP crystal deposition. Conclusion A data- and expert-driven process is underway to develop CPPD classification criteria. Candidate items comprise clinical, imaging, and laboratory features

Identifying potential classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD): Item generation and item reduction

Classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition disease (CPPD) will facilitate clinical research on this common crystalline arthritis. We report on the first two phases of a four-phase process for developing CPPD classification criteria