Dijkstra Maryanne E, Anink Janneke, van Pelt Philomine A, Hazes Johanna M, van Suijlekom-Smit Lisette W A
From the Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Rheumatology, Sophia Children's Hospital, Erasmus University Medical Centre (Erasmus MC), Rotterdam; and the Department of Rheumatology, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.M.E. Dijkstra, MSc; J. Anink, MD, MScE; L.W.A. van Suijlekom-Smit, MD, MScE, PhD, Department of Pediatrics and Pediatric Rheumatology, Sophia Children's Hospital, Erasmus MC; P.A. van Pelt, MD; J.M. Hazes, MD, MScE, PhD, Professor, Department of Rheumatology, Erasmus MC.
J Rheumatol. 2015 Mar;42(3):527-33. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.140073. Epub 2014 Nov 29.
To evaluate the reliability of a manikin format, patient-reported joint count in juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), and to detect changes in agreement at a second visit.
Patients with JIA aged 12-21 were asked to mark joints with active arthritis on a manikin before their regular clinic visit. The physician then performed a joint count without having seen the patient's assessment. Agreement between scores of physician-reported and patient-reported joint counts was assessed using ICC. Kappa statistics were used to assess reliability of scoring individual joints.
The study included 75 patients with JIA. In general, patients had a low number of active joints (median 1 joint, indicated by the physician). ICC was moderate (0.61) and κ ranged from 0.3-0.7. At the second visit, κ were similar; the ICC was 0.19. When a patient scored 0 joints, the physician confirmed this 93%-100% of the time. When the patient marked ≥ 1 joints, the physician confirmed arthritis 59%-76% of the time. Sensitivity to change was moderate.
Agreement between physician and patient on the number of joints with active arthritis was reasonable. Untrained patients tended to overestimate the presence of arthritis when they marked active joints on a manikin-format joint count. When the patient indicated absence of arthritis, the physician usually confirmed this. As the agreement did not improve at followup, future research should focus on the possibility of achieving this through training. For now, the patient-reported joint count cannot replace the physicians' joint count in clinical practice; it may be used in epidemiological studies with caution.
评估人体模型格式的青少年特发性关节炎(JIA)患者报告的关节计数的可靠性,并检测第二次就诊时一致性的变化。
年龄在12 - 21岁的JIA患者在常规门诊就诊前,被要求在人体模型上标记出患有活动性关节炎的关节。然后医生在未查看患者评估结果的情况下进行关节计数。使用组内相关系数(ICC)评估医生报告的和患者报告的关节计数得分之间的一致性。kappa统计量用于评估单个关节评分的可靠性。
该研究纳入了75例JIA患者。总体而言,患者的活动性关节数量较少(医生指出的中位数为1个关节)。ICC为中等(0.61),kappa值范围为0.3 - 0.7。在第二次就诊时,kappa值相似;ICC为0.19。当患者评分为0个关节时,医生在93% - 100%的时间内予以确认。当患者标记≥1个关节时,医生在59% - 76%的时间内确认有关节炎。对变化的敏感性为中等。
医生和患者在活动性关节炎关节数量上的一致性是合理的。未经训练的患者在人体模型格式的关节计数上标记活动性关节时往往高估关节炎的存在。当患者表示无关节炎时,医生通常予以确认。由于随访时一致性没有改善,未来的研究应关注通过培训实现这一目标的可能性。目前,患者报告的关节计数在临床实践中不能取代医生的关节计数;在流行病学研究中可谨慎使用。