Author
Paul R. Fortin
Other affiliations: McGill University Health Centre, McMaster University, American College of Rheumatology ...read more
Bio: Paul R. Fortin is an academic researcher from Laval University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Lupus erythematosus & Systemic lupus erythematosus. The author has an hindex of 75, co-authored 313 publications receiving 27306 citations. Previous affiliations of Paul R. Fortin include McGill University Health Centre & McMaster University.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
Johns Hopkins University1, University of Alabama at Birmingham2, University of Birmingham3, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation4, Laval University5, University of Manchester6, University College London7, University of California, Los Angeles8, Lund University9, Northwestern University10, Hanyang University11, Dalhousie University12, University of Toronto13, McGill University14, North Shore-LIJ Health System15, Allegheny General Hospital16, University of California, San Diego17, University of Pennsylvania18, Monklands Hospital19, University of the Basque Country20, St Thomas' Hospital21, University of Copenhagen22, New York University23, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill24, Karolinska Institutet25, SUNY Downstate Medical Center26, University of Manitoba27, Wake Forest University28, University of Louisville29, Emory University30, Istanbul University31, Medical University of South Carolina32, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio33, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center34, University of Maryland, Baltimore35
TL;DR: The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE.
Abstract: Objective The Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC) group revised and validated the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) classification criteria in order to improve clinical relevance, meet stringent methodology requirements, and incorporate new knowledge regarding the immunology of SLE. Methods The classification criteria were derived from a set of 702 expert-rated patient scenarios. Recursive partitioning was used to derive an initial rule that was simplified and refined based on SLICC physician consensus. The SLICC group validated the classification criteria in a new validation sample of 690 new expert-rated patient scenarios. Results Seventeen criteria were identified. In the derivation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (49 versus 70; P = 0.0082) and had greater sensitivity (94% versus 86%; P < 0.0001) and equal specificity (92% versus 93%; P = 0.39). In the validation set, the SLICC classification criteria resulted in fewer misclassifications compared with the current ACR classification criteria (62 versus 74; P = 0.24) and had greater sensitivity (97% versus 83%; P < 0.0001) but lower specificity (84% versus 96%; P < 0.0001). Conclusion The new SLICC classification criteria performed well in a large set of patient scenarios rated by experts. According to the SLICC rule for the classification of SLE, the patient must satisfy at least 4 criteria, including at least one clinical criterion and one immunologic criterion OR the patient must have biopsy-proven lupus nephritis in the presence of antinuclear antibodies or antidouble-stranded DNA antibodies. (Less)
3,609 citations
SUNY Downstate Medical Center1, McMaster University2, McGill University3, Harvard University4, Toronto General Hospital5, University of Birmingham6, University of Pisa7, Dalhousie University8, University of Manchester9, University College London10, University of California, Los Angeles11, United Hospitals12, Lund University13, Johns Hopkins University14, St. Vincent's Health System15
TL;DR: This damage index for SLE records damage occurring in patients with SLE regardless of its cause and was demonstrated to have content, face, criterion, and discriminant validity.
Abstract: Objective. To develop and perform an initial validation of a damage index for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).
Methods. A list of items considered to reflect damage in SLE was generated through a nominal group process. A consensus as to which items to be included in an index was reached, together with rules for ascertainment. Each center submitted 2 assessments, 5 years apart, on 2 patients with active and 2 with inactive disease, of whom 1 had increased damage and the other had stable disease. Analysis of variance was used to test the factors physician, time, amount of damage, and activity status.
Results. Nineteen physicians completed the damage index on 42 case scenarios. The analysis revealed that the damage index could identify changes in damage seen in patients with both active and inactive disease. Patients who had active disease at both time points had a higher increase in damage. There was good agreement among the physicians on the assessment of damage in these patients.
Conclusion. This damage index for SLE records damage occurring in patients with SLE regardless of its cause. The index was demonstrated to have content, face, criterion, and discriminant validity.
2,095 citations
Harvard University1, McGill University2, University of Birmingham3, University College London4, University of Alabama at Birmingham5, McMaster University6, Dalhousie University7, Anschutz Medical Campus8, Mount Sinai St. Luke's and Mount Sinai Roosevelt9, Hospital for Special Surgery10, University of Michigan11, Detroit Receiving Hospital12, Johns Hopkins University13, Virginia Commonwealth University14, University of Texas at San Antonio15, University of Kiel16, Royal Stoke University Hospital17, University of British Columbia18, Henry Ford Health System19, University of California, Los Angeles20
TL;DR: The American College of Rheumatology Nomenclature for NPSLE provides case definitions for 19 neuropsychiatric syndromes seen in SLE, with reporting standards and recommendations for laboratory and imaging tests.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE
To develop a standardized nomenclature system for the neuropsychiatric syndromes of systemic lupus erythematosus (NPSLE).
METHODS
An international, multidisciplinary committee representing rheumatology, neurology, psychiatry, neuropsychology, and hematology developed case definitions, reporting standards, and diagnostic testing recommendations. Before and after the meeting, clinician committee members assigned diagnoses to sets of vignettes randomly generated from a pool of 108 NPSLE patients. To assess whether the nomenclature system improved diagnostic agreement, a consensus index was developed and pre- and postmeeting scores were compared by t-tests.
RESULTS
Case definitions including diagnostic criteria, important exclusions, and methods of ascertainment were developed for 19 NPSLE syndromes. Recommendations for standard reporting requirements, minimum laboratory evaluation, and imaging techniques were formulated. A short neuropsychological test battery for the diagnosis of cognitive deficits was proposed. In the postmeeting exercise, a statistically significant improvement in diagnostic agreement was observed.
CONCLUSION
The American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Nomenclature for NPSLE provides case definitions for 19 neuropsychiatric syndromes seen in SLE, with reporting standards and recommendations for laboratory and imaging tests. It is intended to facilitate and enhance clinical research, particularly multicenter studies, and reporting. In clinical settings, consultation with other specialists may be required. It should be useful for didactic purposes but should not be used uncritically or as a substitute for a clinical diagnosis. The complete case definitions are available on the ACR World Wide Web site: http://www.rheumatology .org/ar/ar.html.
1,830 citations
TL;DR: There is a substantial and statistically significant increase in CHD and stroke in SLE that cannot be fully explained by traditional Framingham risk factors alone.
Abstract: Objective
The frequency of coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke are increased in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), but the extent of the increase is uncertain. We sought to determine to what extent the increase could not be explained by common risk factors.
Methods
The participants at two SLE registries were assessed retrospectively for the baseline level of the Framingham study risk factors and for the presence of vascular outcomes: nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), death due to CHD, overall CHD (nonfatal MI, death due to CHD, angina pectoris, and congestive heart failure due to CHD), and stroke. For each patient, the probability of the given outcome was estimated based on the individual's risk profile and the Framingham multiple logistic regression model, corrected for observed followup. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals (95% CIs) were estimated by bootstrap techniques.
Results
Of 296 SLE patients, 33 with a vascular event prior to baseline were excluded. Of the 263 remaining patients, 34 had CHD events (17 nonfatal MIs, 12 CHD deaths) and 16 had strokes over a mean followup period of 8.6 years. After controlling for common risk factors at baseline, the increase in relative risk for these outcomes was 10.1 for nonfatal MI (95% CI 5.8–15.6), 17.0 for death due to CHD (95% CI 8.1–29.7), 7.5 for overall CHD (95% CI 5.1–10.4), and 7.9 for stroke (95% CI 4.0–13.6).
Conclusion
There is a substantial and statistically significant increase in CHD and stroke in SLE that cannot be fully explained by traditional Framingham risk factors alone.
1,143 citations
Montreal General Hospital1, McGill University2, University of Pittsburgh3, SUNY Downstate Medical Center4, Toronto Western Hospital5, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine6, University of Calgary7, University of Birmingham8, Hanyang University9, University College London10, NHS Lanarkshire11, Yeshiva University12, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill13, Lund University14, University of Alabama at Birmingham15, Université de Montréal16, Dalhousie University17, University of British Columbia18, University of Western Ontario19, Royal University Hospital20, University of Manitoba21, Northwestern University22
TL;DR: The Lupus Survival Study Group data are reviewed and particularly the data from the State University of New York Health Science Center at Brooklyn, NY is reviewed.
Abstract: Objective. To examine mortality rates in the largest systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cohort ever assembled. Methods. Our sample was a multisite international SLE cohort (23 centers, 9,547 patients). Deaths were ascertained by vital statistics registry linkage. Standardized mortality ratio (SMR; ratio of deaths observed to deaths expected) estimates were calculated for-all deaths and by cause. The effects of sex, age, SLE duration, race, and calendar-year periods were determined. Results. The overall SMR was 2.4 (95% confidence interval 2.3-2.5). Particularly high mortality was seen for circulatory disease, infections, renal disease, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and lung cancer. The highest SMR estimates were seen in patient groups characterized by female sex, younger age, SLE duration < 1 year, or black/African American race. There was a dramatic decrease in total SMR estimates across calendar-year periods, which was demonstrable for specific causes including death due to infections and death due to renal disorders. However, the SMR due to circulatory diseases tended to increase slightly from the 1970s to the year 2001. Conclusion. Our data from a very large multicenter international cohort emphasize what has been demonstrated previously in smaller samples. These results highlight the increased mortality rate in SLE patients compared with the general population, and they suggest particular risk associated with female sex, younger age, shorter SLE duration, and black/African American race. The risk for certain types of deaths, primarily related to lupus activity (such as renal disease), has decreased over time, while the risk for deaths due to circulatory disease does not appear to have diminished. (Less)
940 citations
Cited by
More filters
Book•
23 Sep 2019TL;DR: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
Abstract: The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.
21,235 citations
TL;DR: This update of the CONSORT statement improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias.
Abstract: Overwhelming evidence shows the quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is not optimal. Without transparent reporting, readers cannot judge the reliability and validity of trial findings nor extract information for systematic reviews. Recent methodological analyses indicate that inadequate reporting and design are associated with biased estimates of treatment effects. Such systematic error is seriously damaging to RCTs, which are considered the gold standard for evaluating interventions because of their ability to minimise or avoid bias. A group of scientists and editors developed the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) statement to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. It was first published in 1996 and updated in 2001. The statement consists of a checklist and flow diagram that authors can use for reporting an RCT. Many leading medical journals and major international editorial groups have endorsed the CONSORT statement. The statement facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of RCTs. During the 2001 CONSORT revision, it became clear that explanation and elaboration of the principles underlying the CONSORT statement would help investigators and others to write or appraise trial reports. A CONSORT explanation and elaboration article was published in 2001 alongside the 2001 version of the CONSORT statement. After an expert meeting in January 2007, the CONSORT statement has been further revised and is published as the CONSORT 2010 Statement. This update improves the wording and clarity of the previous checklist and incorporates recommendations related to topics that have only recently received recognition, such as selective outcome reporting bias. This explanatory and elaboration document-intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the CONSORT statement-has also been extensively revised. It presents the meaning and rationale for each new and updated checklist item providing examples of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies. Several examples of flow diagrams are included. The CONSORT 2010 Statement, this revised explanatory and elaboration document, and the associated website (www.consort-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of randomised trials.
5,957 citations
University of New South Wales1, Hospital for Special Surgery2, Hokkaido University3, University of Utah4, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio5, Utrecht University6, University of Milan7, Geneva College8, Sheba Medical Center9, University of Brescia10, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens11
TL;DR: This document appraise the existing evidence on clinical and laboratory features of APS addressed during the forum and proposes amendments to the Sapporo criteria, including definitions on features ofAPS that were not included in the updated criteria.
5,699 citations
01 May 1981
TL;DR: This chapter discusses Detecting Influential Observations and Outliers, a method for assessing Collinearity, and its applications in medicine and science.
Abstract: 1. Introduction and Overview. 2. Detecting Influential Observations and Outliers. 3. Detecting and Assessing Collinearity. 4. Applications and Remedies. 5. Research Issues and Directions for Extensions. Bibliography. Author Index. Subject Index.
4,948 citations
TL;DR: This report hopes this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
4,767 citations