Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Sep;62(9):2582-91.
doi: 10.1002/art.27580.

The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report

Tuhina Neogi  1 , Daniel Aletaha, Alan J Silman, Raymond L Naden, David T Felson, Rohit Aggarwal, Clifton O Bingham 3rd, Neal S Birnbaum, Gerd R Burmester, Vivian P Bykerk, Marc D Cohen, Bernard Combe, Karen H Costenbader, Maxime Dougados, Paul Emery, Gianfranco Ferraccioli, Johanna M W Hazes, Kathryn Hobbs, Tom W J Huizinga, Arthur Kavanaugh, Jonathan Kay, Dinesh Khanna, Tore K Kvien, Timothy Laing, Katherine Liao, Philip Mease, Henri A Ménard, Larry W Moreland, Raj Nair, Theodore Pincus, Sarah Ringold, Josef S Smolen, Ewa Stanislawska-Biernat, Deborah Symmons, Paul P Tak, Katherine S Upchurch, Jirí Vencovský, Frederick Wolfe, Gillian Hawker; American College of Rheumatology; European League Against Rheumatism
Affiliations

The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: Phase 2 methodological report

Tuhina Neogi et al. Arthritis Rheum. 2010 Sep.

Abstract

Objective: The American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism have developed new classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis (RA). The aim of Phase 2 of the development process was to achieve expert consensus on the clinical and laboratory variables that should contribute to the final criteria set.

Methods: Twenty-four expert RA clinicians (12 from Europe and 12 from North America) participated in Phase 2. A consensus-based decision analysis approach was used to identify factors (and their relative weights) that influence the probability of "developing RA," complemented by data from the Phase 1 study. Patient case scenarios were used to identify and reach consensus on factors important in determining the probability of RA development. Decision analytic software was used to derive the relative weights for each of the factors and their categories, using choice-based conjoint analysis.

Results: The expert panel agreed that the new classification criteria should be applied to individuals with undifferentiated inflammatory arthritis in whom at least 1 joint is deemed by an expert assessor to be swollen, indicating definite synovitis. In this clinical setting, they identified 4 additional criteria as being important: number of joints involved and site of involvement, serologic abnormality, acute-phase response, and duration of symptoms in the involved joints. These criteria were consistent with those identified in the Phase 1 data-driven approach.

Conclusion: The consensus-based, decision analysis approach used in Phase 2 complemented the Phase 1 efforts. The 4 criteria and their relative weights form the basis of the final criteria set.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Example of a discrete choice experiment. RA = rheumatoid arthritis; RF = rheumatoid factor; ACPA = anti–citrullinated protein antibody; MCPs = metacarpophalangeal joints; PIPs = proximal interphalangeal joints; MTPs = metatarsophalangeal joints.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Initial rankings (IR) by the expert rheumatologist panel (n = 24). Expert panel members are indicated by colored dots.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Proportion of respondents who would prescribe methotrexate (MTX) or another disease-modifying antirheumatic drug and proportion who would enroll the patient in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a biologic therapy, for clinical scenarios arranged from lowest to highest probability of “developing rheumatoid arthritis” based on the total score derived from the Phase 2 criteria set.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO, III, et al. 2010 Rheumatoid Arthritis Classification Criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2010;62:2569–2581. - PubMed
    1. Funovits J, Aletaha D, Bykerk V, Combe B, Dougados M, Emery P, et al. The 2010 American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism classification criteria for rheumatoid arthritis: methodological report Phase 1. Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69:1589–1595. - PubMed
    1. Hansen P, Ombler F. A new method for scoring multi-attribute value models using pairwise rankings of alternatives. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal. 2009;15:87–107.
    1. De Coster C, Noseworthy T. Improving wait times in the referral-consultation process: WCWL priority referral scores. Proceeding of the Taming of the Queue VI Conference, Canadian Policy Research Networks; Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 2009. Mar 27–28,
    1. De Coster C, Fitzgerald A, Noseworthy T. Developing priority-setting referral tools for medical sub-specialities. Proceedings of the Annual Canadian Association for Health Services and Policy Research Conference; Gatineau, Quebec, Canada. 2008. May 26–28,

Publication types

MeSH terms