Journal•ISSN: 0003-4967
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases
BMJ
About: Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases is an academic journal published by BMJ. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Medicine & Internal medicine. It has an ISSN identifier of 0003-4967. Over the lifetime, 37431 publications have been published receiving 1003726 citations. The journal is also known as: Ann Rheum Dis.
Topics: Medicine, Internal medicine, Rheumatoid arthritis, Population, Arthritis
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: It was concluded that, to ensure maximum uniformity in grading x rays in field surveys and therapeutic trials, all readings should be made by the same observer, preferably at a single session.
Abstract: In a previous study (Kellgren and Bier, 1956), three sets of x rays of the hands were used to assess interand intra-observer differences in interpreting changes of rheumatoid arthritis. Wide disagreement between observers was found, and it was concluded that, to ensure maximum uniformity in grading x rays in field surveys and therapeutic trials, all readings should be made by the same observer, preferably at a single session. The advisability of having a set of standard reference films was also considered.
10,028 citations
Medical University of Vienna1, Boston University2, Arthritis Research UK3, Johns Hopkins University4, University of California, San Francisco5, Charité6, University of Toronto7, National Jewish Health8, Harvard University9, University of Paris10, University of Leeds11, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart12, Erasmus University Rotterdam13, University of Colorado Denver14, Leiden University15, University of California, San Diego16, University of Massachusetts Medical School17, University of Michigan18, University of Washington19, McGill University20, University of Pittsburgh21, Ministry of Health (New Zealand)22, New York University23, University of Manchester24, University of Amsterdam25
TL;DR: This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features.
Abstract: Objective The 1987 American College of Rheumatology (ACR; formerly the American Rheumatism Association) classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have been criticised for their lack of sensitivity in early disease. This work was undertaken to develop new classification criteria for RA. Methods A joint working group from the ACR and the European League Against Rheumatism developed, in three phases, a new approach to classifying RA. The work focused on identifying, among patients newly presenting with undifferentiated inflammatory synovitis, factors that best discriminated between those who were and those who were not at high risk for persistent and/or erosive disease—this being the appropriate current paradigm underlying the disease construct ‘RA’. Results In the new criteria set, classification as ‘definite RA’ is based on the confirmed presence of synovitis in at least one joint, absence of an alternative diagnosis better explaining the synovitis, and achievement of a total score of 6 or greater (of a possible 10) from the individual scores in four domains: number and site of involved joints (range 0–5), serological abnormality (range 0–3), elevated acute-phase response (range 0–1) and symptom duration (two levels; range 0–1). Conclusion This new classification system redefines the current paradigm of RA by focusing on features at earlier stages of disease that are associated with persistent and/or erosive disease, rather than defining the disease by its late-stage features. This will refocus attention on the important need for earlier diagnosis and institution of effective disease-suppressing therapy to prevent or minimise the occurrence of the undesirable sequelae that currently comprise the paradigm underlying the disease construct ‘RA’.
5,964 citations
TL;DR: These classification criteria for Sjögren's syndrome have been re-examined by consensus group members, who have introduced some modifications, more clearly defined the rules for classifying patients with primary or secondary SS, and provided more precise exclusion criteria.
Abstract: Classification criteria for Sjogren's syndrome (SS) were developed and validated between 1989 and 1996 by the European Study Group on Classification Criteria for SS, and broadly accepted. These have been re-examined by consensus group members, who have introduced some modifications, more clearly defined the rules for classifying patients with primary or secondary SS, and provided more precise exclusion criteria.
4,914 citations
Medical University of Vienna1, University of Amsterdam2, Leiden University Medical Center3, Chapel Allerton Hospital4, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust5, Humboldt State University6, Oregon Health & Science University7, Utrecht University8, VU University Medical Center9, University of Montpellier10, University of Belgrade11, Erasmus University Rotterdam12, University of Paris-Sud13, Charles University in Prague14, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre15, University of Cologne16, Weston Education Centre17, Tufts University18
TL;DR: These recommendations intend informing rheumatologists, patients, national rheumology societies, hospital officials, social security agencies and regulators about EULAR's most recent consensus on the management of RA, aimed at attaining best outcomes with current therapies.
Abstract: In this article, the 2010 European League against Rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (sDMARDs and bDMARDs, respectively) have been updated. The 2013 update has been developed by an international task force, which based its decisions mostly on evidence from three systematic literature reviews (one each on sDMARDs, including glucocorticoids, bDMARDs and safety aspects of DMARD therapy); treatment strategies were also covered by the searches. The evidence presented was discussed and summarised by the experts in the course of a consensus finding and voting process. Levels of evidence and grades of recommendations were derived and levels of agreement (strengths of recommendations) were determined. Fourteen recommendations were developed (instead of 15 in 2010). Some of the 2010 recommendations were deleted, and others were amended or split. The recommendations cover general aspects, such as attainment of remission or low disease activity using a treat-to-target approach, and the need for shared decision-making between rheumatologists and patients. The more specific items relate to starting DMARD therapy using a conventional sDMARD (csDMARD) strategy in combination with glucocorticoids, followed by the addition of a bDMARD or another csDMARD strategy (after stratification by presence or absence of adverse risk factors) if the treatment target is not reached within 6 months (or improvement not seen at
4,730 citations
Charité1, Leiden University2, Maastricht University3, Dokuz Eylül University4, Ruhr University Bochum5, University of Córdoba (Spain)6, University of Paris7, Sun Yat-sen University8, Ege University9, University of Alberta10, Ghent University11, University of Copenhagen12, Fırat University13, Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust14, Chung Shan Medical University15
TL;DR: The new ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA can reliably classify patients for clinical studies and may help rheumatologists in clinical practice in diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis in those with chronic back pain.
Abstract: Objective: To validate and refine two sets of candidate criteria for the classification/diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods: All Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) members were invited to include consecutively new patients with chronic (⩾3 months) back pain of unknown origin that began before 45 years of age. The candidate criteria were first tested in the entire cohort of 649 patients from 25 centres, and then refined in a random selection of 40% of cases and thereafter validated in the remaining 60%. Results: Upon diagnostic work-up, axial SpA was diagnosed in 60.2% of the cohort. Of these, 70% did not fulfil modified New York criteria and, therefore, were classified as having “non-radiographic” axial SpA. Refinement of the candidate criteria resulted in new ASAS classification criteria that are defined as: the presence of sacroiliitis by radiography or by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) plus at least one SpA feature (“imaging arm”) or the presence of HLA-B27 plus at least two SpA features (“clinical arm”). The sensitivity and specificity of the entire set of the new criteria were 82.9% and 84.4%, and for the imaging arm alone 66.2% and 97.3%, respectively. The specificity of the new criteria was much better than that of the European Spondylarthropathy Study Group criteria modified for MRI (sensitivity 85.1%, specificity 65.1%) and slightly better than that of the modified Amor criteria (sensitivity 82.9, specificity 77.5%). Conclusion: The new ASAS classification criteria for axial SpA can reliably classify patients for clinical studies and may help rheumatologists in clinical practice in diagnosing axial SpA in those with chronic back pain. Trial registration number: NCT00328068.
2,704 citations