Rodwell Nicholas, Hassett Geraldine, Bird Paul, Pincus Theodore, Descallar Joseph, Gibson Kathryn A
Liverpool Hospital and Ingham Institute for Applied Medical Research, Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia, and University of New South Wales, Medicine and Health, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
University of New South Wales, Medicine and Health, Kensington, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
ACR Open Rheumatol. 2023 Oct;5(10):511-521. doi: 10.1002/acr2.11574. Epub 2023 Aug 22.
To analyze a RheuMetric checklist, which includes four feasible physician 0 to 10 scores for DOCGL, inflammation (DOCINF), damage (DOCDAM), and distress (DOCSTR) for criterion and discriminant validity against standard reference measures.
A prospective, cross-sectional assessment was performed at one routine care visit at Liverpool Hospital, Sydney, Australia. Rheumatologists recorded DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM, DOCSTR, and 28 joint counts for swelling (SJC), tenderness (TJC), and limited motion/deformity (DJC). Patients completed a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ), which includes routine assessment of patient index data (RAPID3), fibromyalgia assessment screening tool (FAST4), and MDHAQ depression screen (MDS2). Laboratory tests and radiographic scores were recorded. RheuMetric estimates of inflammation, damage, and distress were compared with reference and other measures using correlations and linear regressions.
In 173 patients with RA, variation in RheuMetric DOCINF was explained significantly by SJC and inversely by disease duration; variation in DOCDAM was explained significantly by DJC, radiographic scores, and physical function; and variation in DOCSTR was explained significantly by fibromyalgia and depression.
RheuMetric DOCINF, DOCDAM, and DOCSTR estimates were correlated significantly and specifically with reference measures of inflammation, damage, and distress, documenting criterion and discriminant validity.
分析一种风湿病评估清单,该清单包含医生对疾病总体严重程度(DOCGL)、炎症(DOCINF)、损伤(DOCDAM)和痛苦程度(DOCSTR)的四个可行评分(0至10分),以评估其相对于标准参考指标的标准效度和区分效度。
在澳大利亚悉尼利物浦医院的一次常规护理就诊中进行了一项前瞻性横断面评估。风湿病学家记录了DOCGL、DOCINF、DOCDAM、DOCSTR以及28个关节的肿胀计数(SJC)、压痛计数(TJC)和活动受限/畸形计数(DJC)。患者完成了一份多维健康评估问卷(MDHAQ),其中包括患者指数数据常规评估(RAPID3)、纤维肌痛评估筛查工具(FAST4)和MDHAQ抑郁筛查(MDS2)。记录了实验室检查结果和影像学评分。使用相关性和线性回归将风湿病评估清单对炎症、损伤和痛苦程度的估计值与参考指标及其他指标进行比较。
在173例类风湿关节炎患者中,SJC能显著解释风湿病评估清单中DOCINF的变化,且疾病持续时间与之呈负相关;DJC、影像学评分和身体功能能显著解释DOCDAM的变化;纤维肌痛和抑郁能显著解释DOCSTR的变化。
风湿病评估清单对DOCINF、DOCDAM和DOCSTR的估计值与炎症、损伤和痛苦程度的参考指标显著相关且具有特异性,证明了其标准效度和区分效度。