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.

On Running Late in Life—Reply

In defense of the ARA database.

We appreciate both the praise and the caveats in the preceding commentary; we discussed most of the caveats in the article and are in general agreement. We believe our study’ provides some of the best available documentation for the effectiveness of a specific health promotion program by prospective observational study. We studied large numbers of subjects over a substantial period, with the ability to look separately at effects by age, education level, and gender, and to demonstrate continued improvement over time in selected subgroups. The principal limitations are the observational nature of the study, the self-selection bias endemic to all health promotion work, and attrition bias occurring during follow-up. The last problem can be inferred, from the data presented on initial values in subjects participating for various time periods, to be present and to be of modest magnitude. Absence of data on nonparticipants and on final values for dropouts precludes a full "intent-totreat" analysis, which would have been a preferable design. We chose instead to present data on first and follow-up observations in subgroups followed over different time periods, comparing precisely the same subjects in each analysis. This technique, in turn, is more appropriate than the more common practice of simply tabulating overall experience at each time period, which in effect uses attrition bias to increase the apparent effectiveness of the intervention. It seems that the commentary author would have had us prepare separate papers for cohort studies for different periods; we disagree and feel that our choice is more informative. We reported 30month experience with over 7,000 participants, and we think that this is quite a lot. Our study demonstrates, we believe, the importance of designing evaluation capabilities directly into the computer programs underlying risk appraisal processing; this

James F. Fries

Papers

On Running Late in Life—Reply

In defense of the ARA database.

Author Reply to Commentary

Predictors ofdisability ina longitudinal sample of patients withrheumatoid arthritis