Suppr超能文献

三种筛查工具在银屑病患者中筛查银屑病关节炎的比较(CONTEST 研究)。

Comparison of three screening tools to detect psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis (CONTEST study).

机构信息

LIMM Division of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Disease and NIHR Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.

出版信息

Br J Dermatol. 2013 Apr;168(4):802-7. doi: 10.1111/bjd.12190.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Multiple questionnaires to screen for psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have been developed but the optimal screening questionnaire is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare three PsA screening questionnaires in a head-to-head study using CASPAR (the Classification Criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis) as the gold standard.

METHODS

This study recruited from 10 U.K. secondary care dermatology clinics. Patients with a diagnosis of psoriasis, not previously diagnosed with PsA, were given all three questionnaires. All patients who were positive on any questionnaire were invited for a rheumatological assessment. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to compare the sensitivity, specificity and area under the curve of the three questionnaires according to CASPAR criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 938 patients with psoriasis were invited to participate and 657 (70%) patients returned the questionnaires. One or more questionnaires were positive in 314 patients (48%) and 195 (62%) of these patients attended for assessment. Of these, 47 patients (24%) were diagnosed with PsA according to the CASPAR criteria. The proportion of patients with PsA increased with the number of positive questionnaires (one questionnaire, 19·1%; two, 34·0%; three, 46·8%). Sensitivities and specificities for the three questionnaires, and areas under the ROC curve were, respectively: Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Evaluation (PASE), 74·5%, 38·5%, 0·594; Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST), 76·6%, 37·2%, 0·610; Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen (ToPAS), 76·6%, 29·7%, 0·554. The majority of patients with a false positive response had degenerative or osteoarthritis.

CONCLUSION

Although the PEST and ToPAS questionnaires performed slightly better than the PASE questionnaire at identifying PsA, there is little difference between these instruments. These screening tools identify many cases of musculoskeletal disease other than PsA.

摘要

背景

已经开发出多种用于筛查银屑病关节炎(PsA)的问卷,但最佳的筛查问卷尚不清楚。

目的

使用 CASPAR(银屑病关节炎分类标准)作为金标准,对头对头研究中的三种 PsA 筛查问卷进行比较。

方法

该研究在英国 10 家二级保健皮肤科诊所招募了患者。所有被诊断为银屑病且以前未被诊断为 PsA 的患者均被提供了这三种问卷。任何问卷呈阳性的患者均被邀请接受风湿病评估。根据 CASPAR 标准,使用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线比较三种问卷的敏感性、特异性和曲线下面积。

结果

共邀请了 938 名银屑病患者参与研究,其中 657 名(70%)患者返回了问卷。314 名患者(48%)的一种或多种问卷呈阳性,其中 195 名(62%)患者接受了评估。根据 CASPAR 标准,其中 47 名患者(24%)被诊断为 PsA。随着阳性问卷数量的增加,患 PsA 的患者比例增加(一种问卷,19.1%;两种问卷,34.0%;三种问卷,46.8%)。三种问卷的敏感性、特异性和 ROC 曲线下面积分别为:银屑病关节炎筛查评估(PASE)为 74.5%、38.5%和 0.594;银屑病流行病学筛查工具(PEST)为 76.6%、37.2%和 0.610;多伦多银屑病关节炎筛查(ToPAS)为 76.6%、29.7%和 0.554。大多数假阳性反应患者患有退行性或骨关节炎。

结论

尽管 PEST 和 ToPAS 问卷在识别 PsA 方面比 PASE 问卷略好,但这些工具之间的差异很小。这些筛查工具会识别出许多除 PsA 以外的肌肉骨骼疾病。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验