4.7 Article

A prediction rule for the development of arthritis in seropositive arthralgia patients

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 72, 期 12, 页码 1920-1926

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202127

关键词

Rheumatoid Arthritis; Autoantibodies; Early Rheumatoid Arthritis; Epidemiology

资金

  1. Dutch Arthritis Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To predict the development of arthritis in anticyclic citrullinated peptide antibodies and/or IgM rheumatoid factor positive (seropositive) arthralgia patients. Methods A prediction rule was developed using a prospective cohort of 374 seropositive arthralgia patients, followed for the development of arthritis. The model was created with backward stepwise Cox regression with 18 variables. Results 131 patients (35%) developed arthritis after a median of 12months. The prediction model consisted of nine variables: Rheumatoid Arthritis in a first degree family member, alcohol non-use, duration of symptoms <12months, presence of intermittent symptoms, arthralgia in upper and lower extremities, visual analogue scale pain 50, presence of morning stiffness 1h, history of swollen joints as reported by the patient and antibody status. A simplified prediction rule was made ranging from 0 to 13 points. The area under the curve value (95% CI) of this prediction rule was 0.82 (0.75-0.89) after 5years. Harrell's C (95% CI) was 0.78 (0.73-0.84). Patients could be categorised in three risk groups: low (0-4 points), intermediate (5-6 points) and high risk (7-13 points). With the low risk group as a reference, the intermediate risk group had a hazard ratio (HR; 95% CI) of 4.52 (2.42-8.77) and the high risk group had a HR of 14.86 (8.40-28.32). Conclusions In patients presenting with seropositive arthralgia, the risk of developing arthritis can be predicted. The prediction rule that was made in this patient group can help (1) to inform patients and (2) to select high-risk patients for intervention studies before clinical arthritis occurs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据