Classification Criteria for Systemic Sclerosis: An ACR-EULAR Collaborative Initiative

By Frank van den Hoogen, Dinesh Khanna, Jaap Fransen, Sindhu R. Johnson, Murray Baron, Alan Tyndall, M. Matucci-Cerinic, R. Naden, G. Riemekasten, Patricia Carreira and 34 more. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 2013

1,052 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Background The 1980 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc) lack sensitivity in early SSc and limited cutaneous SSc. A joint ACR-EULAR committee was established to develop new classification criteria for SSc. Methods Using consensus methods, 23 candidate items were arranged in a multi-criteria additive point system with a threshold to classify cases as SSc. The classification system was reduced by clustering items, and simplifying weights. The system was tested by: a) determining specificity and sensitivity in SSc cases and controls with scleroderma-like disorders; b) validating against the combined view of a group of experts on a set of cases with or without SSc. Results Skin thickening of the fingers extending proximal to the MCPs is sufficient to be classified as SSc, if that is not present, seven additive items apply with varying weights for each: skin thickening of the fingers, finger tip lesions, telangiectasia, abnormal nailfold capillaries, interstitial lung disease or pulmonary arterial hypertension, Raynaud's phenomenon, and SSc-related autoantibodies. Sensitivity and specificity in the validation sample were 0.91 and 0.92 for the new classification criteria and 0.75 and 0.72 for the 1980 ARA classification criteria. All selected cases were classified in accordance with consensus-based expert opinion. All cases classified as SSc by the 1980 ARA criteria were classified with the new criteria, and several additional cases were now considered to be SSc. Conclusion The ACR-EULAR classification criteria for SSc performed better than the 1980 ARA Criteria for SSc and should allow for more patients to be classified correctly as SSc.

Subfields: Epidemiology, Pathology and Forensic Medicine, Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/bccd62ea32b6e1c418ea79be8e2471b6fcc58175

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

  1. X. Mariette
  2. C. Shiboski
  3. L. Criswell
  4. S. Shiboski
  5. R. Seror
  6. M. Labetoulle
  7. S. Bowman
  8. T. Lietman

Citations in the corpus