The revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) were formulated from a computerized analysis of 262 contemporary, consecutively studied patients with RA and 262 control subjects with rheumatic diseases other than RA (non-RA). The new criteria are as follows: 1) morning stiffness in and around joints lasting at least 1 hour before maximal improvement; 2) soft tissue swelling (arthritis) of 3 or more joint areas observed by a physician; 3) swelling (arthritis) of the proximal interphalangeal, metacarpophalangeal, or wrist joints; 4) symmetric swelling (arthritis); 5) rheumatoid nodules; 6) the presence of rheumatoid factor; and 7) radiographic erosions and/or periarticular osteopenia in hand and/or wrist joints. Criteria 1 through 4 must have been present for at least 6 weeks. Rheumatoid arthritis is defined by the presence of 4 or more criteria, and no further qualifications (classic, definite, or probable) or list of exclusions are required. In addition, a "classification tree" schema is presented which performs equally as well as the traditional (4 of 7) format. The new criteria demonstrated 91-94% sensitivity and 89% specificity for RA when compared with non-RA rheumatic disease control subjects.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780310302

The American Rheumatism Association 1987 revised criteria for the classification of rheumatoid arthritis.

The 1971 preliminary criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) were revised and updated to incorporate new immunologic knowledge and improve disease classification. The 1982 revised criteria include fluorescence antinuclear antibody and antibody to native DNA and Sm antigen. Some criteria involving the same organ systems were aggregated into single criteria. Raynaud's phenomenon and alopecia were not included in the 1982 revised criteria because of low sensitivity and specificity. The new criteria were 96% sensitive and 96% specific when tested with SLE and control patient data gathered from 18 participating clinics. When compared with the 1971 criteria, the 1982 revised criteria showed gains in sensitivity and specificity.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780251101

The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus

K/DOQI clinical practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: Evaluation, classification, and stratification

In 1982, the Diagnostic and Therapeutic Criteria Committee of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR)published revised criteria for the classification of systemiclupus erythematosus (SLE) (1). During the ensuing decade several investigators, including Drs. Graham Hughes and Donato Alarcon-Segovia, among others, have described the presence and clinical associations or antiphospholipid antibodies in patients with SLE, as well as the occurrence of theprimary antiphospholipid syndrome (2-5). In 1992, Piette and colleagues suggested that the ACR revised criteria be reevaluated in light of the above discoveries (6).

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780400928

Updating the American College of Rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus.

To develop criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia, we studied 558 consecutive patients: 293 patients with fibromyalgia and 265 control patients. Interviews and examinations were performed by trained, blinded assessors. Control patients for the group with primary fibromyalgia were matched for age and sex, and limited to patients with disorders that could be confused with primary fibromyalgia. Control patients for the group with secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia were matched for age, sex, and concomitant rheumatic disorders. Widespread pain (axial plus upper and lower segment plus left- and right-sided pain) was found in 97.6% of all patients with fibromyalgia and in 69.1% of all control patients. The combination of widespread pain and mild or greater tenderness in greater than or equal to 11 of 18 tender point sites yielded a sensitivity of 88.4% and a specificity of 81.1%. Primary fibromyalgia patients and secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia patients did not differ statistically in any major study variable, and the criteria performed equally well in patients with and those without concomitant rheumatic conditions. The newly proposed criteria for the classification of fibromyalgia are 1) widespread pain in combination with 2) tenderness at 11 or more of the 18 specific tender point sites. No exclusions are made for the presence of concomitant radiographic or laboratory abnormalities. At the diagnostic or classification level, the distinction between primary fibromyalgia and secondary-concomitant fibromyalgia (as defined in the text) is abandoned.

https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/art.1780330203

The American College of Rheumatology 1990 Criteria for the Classification of Fibromyalgia. Report of the Multicenter Criteria Committee.

Polyarthralgia and polyarthritis.

Ankylosing spondylitis: genetics versus environment.

To evaluate the information content of lateral lumbar films with respect to bone mineral content, we compared reading criteria with values obtained by quantitative computed tomography (CT) of L1 at baseline and after 5 years. The highest correlations with mineral content were found for the criteria “overall assessment of the vertebra”, “vertebral body density versus soft tissue”, and “amount of trabeculations”. These three reading criteria yielded higher correlations with CT scores in subjects with lower body mass index. Changes in mineral content over the 5-year period could not be read adequately, the average difference representing only a loss of about 10% in the study subjects. We conclude that a rough estimate of bone density can be obtained from lateral radiographs which, in the presence of eventual risk factors for osteoporosis, may serve as an additional indication to timely bone densitometry with methods which allow precise short-term follow-up measurements.

Estimating lumbar bone mineral density from routine radiographs of the lumbar spine

In Reply.— Drs Murphy and Ehrlich are appropriately concerned, as are we, by the possibility of self-selection into the runners group individuals who are resistant to the development of osteoarthritis. Our article reported an initial cross-sectional study—part of an ongoing eight-year prospective study of 961 runners and randomly selected community controls. This study, now in its second year, is designed to address this issue. Already, however, there are compelling reasons to suspect that little self-selection bias is present. If the purported self-selection were due to gradual dropouts of those developing osteoarthritis from running groups, then we should get different results when we count all runners of any distance, past or present, as runners, than when we include only avid club members. In fact, exactly the same findings hold. Moreover, the same results hold when we compare runners and nonrunners within the community control group, a population of subjects randomly selected

The Relation of Running to Bone and Joint Disease-Reply

/pdf/the-declining-incidence-of-nonsteroidal-anti-inflammatory-11q8zvpngs.pdf

James F. Fries

Papers

Polyarthralgia and polyarthritis.

Ankylosing spondylitis: genetics versus environment.

Estimating lumbar bone mineral density from routine radiographs of the lumbar spine

The Relation of Running to Bone and Joint Disease-Reply

The declining incidence of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug gastropathy in rheumatoid arthritis patients: rates and reasons.