Department of Rheumatology, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre, Headington, Oxford, UK.
Ann Rheum Dis. 2011 Jan;70(1):80-5. doi: 10.1136/ard.2009.122952. Epub 2010 Aug 24.
To compare the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) with the Combined Damage Assessment Index (CDA) as measures of damage from vasculitis.
A total of 283 patients with vasculitis from 11 European centres were evaluated in a cross-sectional study using the VDI and CDA.
Wegener's granulomatosis (58.4%) and microscopic polyangiitis (11.0%) were the most common diagnoses. Agreement between VDI and CDA scores (Spearman's correlation) was 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.92). There was good correlation between individual comparably evaluated organ systems (Spearman's correlation 0.70-0.94). Interobserver reliability (assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)) was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.98) for VDI and 0.78 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.93) for CDA. Intraobserver reliability was 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) for VDI and 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.00) for CDA. A total of 13 items were not used in the VDI compared to 23 in the CDA. Observers agreed that the CDA covered the full spectrum of damage attributable to vasculitis but was more time consuming and thus possibly less feasible for clinical and research purposes.
The VDI and CDA capture reliable data on damage among patients with vasculitis. The CDA captures more detail but is more complex and less practical than the VDI. Further evolution of damage assessment in vasculitis is likely to include key elements from both instruments.
比较血管炎损伤指数(VDI)和联合损伤评估指数(CDA)作为评估血管炎损伤的指标。
在一项横断面研究中,来自 11 个欧洲中心的 283 名血管炎患者使用 VDI 和 CDA 进行评估。
韦格纳肉芽肿病(58.4%)和显微镜下多血管炎(11.0%)是最常见的诊断。VDI 和 CDA 评分之间的一致性(Spearman 相关系数)为 0.90(95%CI 0.87-0.92)。个体可比评估的器官系统之间存在良好的相关性(Spearman 相关系数 0.70-0.94)。观察者间可靠性(通过组内相关系数(ICC)评估)为 VDI 0.94(95%CI 0.89-0.98)和 CDA 0.78(95%CI 0.63-0.93)。VDI 的观察者内可靠性为 0.92(95%CI 0.83-1.00),CDA 为 0.87(95%CI 0.75-1.00)。与 CDA 相比,VDI 中有 13 项未使用,而 CDA 中有 23 项未使用。观察者一致认为 CDA 涵盖了归因于血管炎的全部损伤范围,但更耗时,因此在临床和研究目的方面可能不太可行。
VDI 和 CDA 可可靠地评估血管炎患者的损伤。CDA 可更详细地捕获信息,但比 VDI 更复杂且不太实用。血管炎损伤评估的进一步发展可能包括这两种工具的关键要素。