Frequency of Sjögren’s syndrome in patients with dry symptoms using two histopathological methods

Jairo Cajamarca-Barón , Diana Guavita-Navarro , Ana María Gutiérrez Cura , Paula Cristina Castro Quiroga , Héctor Cubides , Ana María Arredondo , Alejandro Escobar , José Fernando Polo Nieto , Claudia Ibáñez , Adriana Rojas-Villarraga
{"title":"Frequency of Sjögren’s syndrome in patients with dry symptoms using two histopathological methods","authors":"Jairo Cajamarca-Barón ,&nbsp;Diana Guavita-Navarro ,&nbsp;Ana María Gutiérrez Cura ,&nbsp;Paula Cristina Castro Quiroga ,&nbsp;Héctor Cubides ,&nbsp;Ana María Arredondo ,&nbsp;Alejandro Escobar ,&nbsp;José Fernando Polo Nieto ,&nbsp;Claudia Ibáñez ,&nbsp;Adriana Rojas-Villarraga","doi":"10.1016/j.rcreue.2022.03.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction and objective</h3><p>The criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome (SS) classification (ACR/EULAR 2016), include labial salivary gland (LSG) biopsy using the focus score (FS). But, in some cases it continues to be based on Chisholm and Mason (CM). Our objective was to evaluate the frequency of SS in patients with dry symptoms using FS and CM and to evaluate the degree of inter and intra-observer concordance of the histopathological reading by both methods.</p></div><div><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>Cross-sectional study design. All patients with dry symptoms and studies to perform the SS classification criteria (2016) were included. The samples were independently evaluated by two readers. Descriptive statistics was used for the calculation of SS frequency. Agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient) was analysed (STATA) for each test (CM and FS). Ethics approval was obtained.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>92 patients were included. According to the 2016 criteria, SS was reported in 26.1% patients in whom FS was used and in 34.8% patients in whom CM was used. The degree of intra-observer concordance for the diagnosis of FLS was perfect and moderate-high for observers. Inter-observer agreement was substantial, with kappa values ​​of .77 FS and .75 CM.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>FS method is a more detailed and specific score that facilitates correct classification. The use of CM as a histopathological classificatory method for SS includes more patients when compared with FS. These results are of relevance to standardise the reading of LSG biopsy in specialized services attending SS patients.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":101099,"journal":{"name":"Revista Colombiana de Reumatología (English Edition)","volume":"31 1","pages":"Pages 29-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista Colombiana de Reumatología (English Edition)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444440524000293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction and objective

The criteria for Sjögren’s syndrome (SS) classification (ACR/EULAR 2016), include labial salivary gland (LSG) biopsy using the focus score (FS). But, in some cases it continues to be based on Chisholm and Mason (CM). Our objective was to evaluate the frequency of SS in patients with dry symptoms using FS and CM and to evaluate the degree of inter and intra-observer concordance of the histopathological reading by both methods.

Materials and methods

Cross-sectional study design. All patients with dry symptoms and studies to perform the SS classification criteria (2016) were included. The samples were independently evaluated by two readers. Descriptive statistics was used for the calculation of SS frequency. Agreement (Cohen’s Kappa coefficient) was analysed (STATA) for each test (CM and FS). Ethics approval was obtained.

Results

92 patients were included. According to the 2016 criteria, SS was reported in 26.1% patients in whom FS was used and in 34.8% patients in whom CM was used. The degree of intra-observer concordance for the diagnosis of FLS was perfect and moderate-high for observers. Inter-observer agreement was substantial, with kappa values ​​of .77 FS and .75 CM.

Conclusions

FS method is a more detailed and specific score that facilitates correct classification. The use of CM as a histopathological classificatory method for SS includes more patients when compared with FS. These results are of relevance to standardise the reading of LSG biopsy in specialized services attending SS patients.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用两种组织病理学方法分析干燥症状患者的斯约格伦综合征发病率
导言和目标斯约格伦综合征(SS)的分类标准(ACR/EULAR,2016 年)包括使用病灶评分(FS)进行唇唾液腺(LSG)活检。但在某些情况下,仍以 Chisholm 和 Mason(CM)为基础。我们的目的是使用 FS 和 CM 评估干燥症状患者出现 SS 的频率,并评估这两种方法的组织病理学读数在观察者之间和观察者内部的一致程度。纳入所有有干燥症状的患者和执行 SS 分类标准(2016 年)的研究。样本由两名阅读者独立评估。描述性统计用于计算SS频率。对每次测试(CM 和 FS)的一致性(Cohen's Kappa coefficient)进行了分析(STATA)。结果92名患者被纳入研究。根据2016年的标准,使用FS的患者中有26.1%报告了SS,使用CM的患者中有34.8%报告了SS。观察者内部对FLS诊断的一致性程度为完全一致,观察者的一致性程度为中等偏上。观察者之间的一致性很高,卡帕值分别为 0.77 FS 和 0.75 CM。与 FS 相比,使用 CM 作为 SS 的组织病理学分类方法可纳入更多患者。这些结果对于规范SS患者专科医院的LSG活检阅读具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Validation of FACIT-fatigue in Spanish-speaking patients with rheumatoid arthritis A comparison of core muscle endurance of females with fibromyalgia versus healthy females: An observational study Central tolerance in T cells, what’s new? Evaluation of clinical outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis from the patient's perspective: a narrative review of the literature Balancing inflammation and adverse effects of glucocorticoids in clinical practice
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1