4.7 Article

Diagnostic delay in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis: results from the Danish nationwide DANBIO registry

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 74, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-204867

关键词

-

资金

  1. The Danish Rheumatism Association

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background/purpose Early diagnosis of inflammatory rheumatic diseases is important in order to improve long-term outcome. We studied whether delay in diagnosis (time between onset of symptoms and establishment of diagnosis) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PSA) and ankylosing spondylitis (AS) changed from year 2000 to 2011. Methods Month and year of initial symptoms and diagnosis, gender, hospital, year of birth and date of first data entry were obtained for 13 721 patients with RA, PSA or AS who had been registered in the DANBIO registry. Time between symptom onset and diagnosis was modelled using generalised linear regression to predict the average duration for each calendar year of initial symptoms with adjustments for gender, year of birth and date of DANBIO entry. Results Patients with valid data (RA: 10 416 (73%); PSA: 1970 (68%); AS: 1335 (65%)) did not differ significantly from the whole DANBIO population, except more missing data in early years. The regression model showed that the mean duration from initial symptoms to diagnosis for RA, PSA and AS declined steadily from 30, 53 and 66 months (year 2000), respectively, to 3-4 months (year 2011). Sensitivity analyses including patients who were included after 2005, patients who had received biological treatment or had symptom onset less than 2 and 5 years prior to first entry into DANBIO showed similar results. Conclusion Since the year 2000, a significant reduction in diagnostic delay was observed in this large cohort of patients with RA, PSA or AS, probably reflecting a stronger awareness of the importance of early diagnosis.

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