Development of the 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase III-D Report: Multi Criteria Decision Analysis.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY Arthritis Care & Research Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1002/acr.25415
Medha Barbhaiya, Stephane Zuily, Mary-Carmen Amigo, Danieli Andrade, Tadej Avcin, Maria Laura Bertolaccini, D Ware Branch, Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, Mark Crowther, Guilherme Ramires de Jesus, Katrien M J Devreese, Camille Frances, David Garcia, Jose A Gómez-Puerta, Francis Guillemin, Steven R Levine, Roger A Levy, Michael D Lockshin, Thomas L Ortel, Michelle Petri, Giovanni Sanna, Savino Sciascia, Surya V Seshan, Maria G Tektonidou, Denis Wahl, Rohan Willis, Cecile Yelnik, Alison Hendry, Ray Naden, Karen Costenbader, Doruk Erkan
{"title":"Development of the 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase III-D Report: Multi Criteria Decision Analysis.","authors":"Medha Barbhaiya, Stephane Zuily, Mary-Carmen Amigo, Danieli Andrade, Tadej Avcin, Maria Laura Bertolaccini, D Ware Branch, Nathalie Costedoat-Chalumeau, Mark Crowther, Guilherme Ramires de Jesus, Katrien M J Devreese, Camille Frances, David Garcia, Jose A Gómez-Puerta, Francis Guillemin, Steven R Levine, Roger A Levy, Michael D Lockshin, Thomas L Ortel, Michelle Petri, Giovanni Sanna, Savino Sciascia, Surya V Seshan, Maria G Tektonidou, Denis Wahl, Rohan Willis, Cecile Yelnik, Alison Hendry, Ray Naden, Karen Costenbader, Doruk Erkan","doi":"10.1002/acr.25415","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) Classification Criteria development, aiming to identify patients with high likelihood of APS for research, employed a four-phase methodology. Phase I and II resulted in 27 proposed candidate criteria, organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of Phase III efforts employing a consensus-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world cases referred for \"suspected APS\" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank-ordered 20 representative cases from highly unlikely to highly likely APS. During an in-person meeting, the subcommittee refined definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise to identify relative weights of candidate criteria. Using consensus decisions and pairwise criteria comparisons, 1000Minds™ software assigned criteria weights, and we rank ordered 192 cases by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Pre-meeting evaluation of 20 representative cases demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 cases by weights and additive scores, the Steering Committee reached consensus that APS classification should require separate clinical and laboratory scores, rather than a single aggregate score, to ensure high specificity.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using MCDA, candidate criteria preliminary weights were determined. Unlike other disease classification systems using a single aggregate threshold score, separate clinical and laboratory domain thresholds were incorporated into the new APS classification criteria.</p>","PeriodicalId":8406,"journal":{"name":"Arthritis Care & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arthritis Care & Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.25415","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome (APS) Classification Criteria development, aiming to identify patients with high likelihood of APS for research, employed a four-phase methodology. Phase I and II resulted in 27 proposed candidate criteria, organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of Phase III efforts employing a consensus-based multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score.

Methods: We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world cases referred for "suspected APS" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank-ordered 20 representative cases from highly unlikely to highly likely APS. During an in-person meeting, the subcommittee refined definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise to identify relative weights of candidate criteria. Using consensus decisions and pairwise criteria comparisons, 1000Minds™ software assigned criteria weights, and we rank ordered 192 cases by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set.

Results: Pre-meeting evaluation of 20 representative cases demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 cases by weights and additive scores, the Steering Committee reached consensus that APS classification should require separate clinical and laboratory scores, rather than a single aggregate score, to ensure high specificity.

Conclusion: Using MCDA, candidate criteria preliminary weights were determined. Unlike other disease classification systems using a single aggregate threshold score, separate clinical and laboratory domain thresholds were incorporated into the new APS classification criteria.

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
制定 2023 年 ACR/EULAR 抗磷脂综合征分类标准,III-D 阶段报告:多标准决策分析。
背景:2023 年 ACR/EULAR 抗磷脂综合征(APS)分类标准的制定,旨在为研究工作确定极有可能患有 APS 的患者,采用了四阶段方法。第一和第二阶段提出了 27 项候选标准,分为实验室和临床两个领域。在此,我们总结了第三阶段最后一个阶段的工作,即采用基于共识的多标准决策分析(MCDA)来权衡候选标准并确定 APS 分类阈值得分:我们评估了 192 例因 "疑似 APS "而转诊的国际真实病例,这些病例具有多种 APS 表现。小组委员会成员采用提议的候选标准,将 20 个具有代表性的病例从极不可能 APS 到极有可能 APS 排序。在一次面对面的会议上,分会对定义进行了完善,并参与了MCDA演练,以确定候选标准的相对权重。1000Minds™ 软件采用共识决策和成对标准比较的方法分配标准权重,我们按照 192 个病例的相加分数进行了排序。结果:对 20 个代表性病例的会前评估表明,APS 评估存在差异。MCDA 解决了 81 个配对决定;相对权重确定了领域项目层次。在对 192 个病例进行权重和加分评估后,指导委员会达成共识,认为 APS 分类应要求分别进行临床和实验室评分,而不是单一的综合评分,以确保高特异性:结论:利用 MCDA,确定了候选标准的初步权重。与其他使用单一总阈值得分的疾病分类系统不同,新的 APS 分类标准中纳入了单独的临床和实验室领域阈值。
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
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
368
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Arthritis Care & Research, an official journal of the American College of Rheumatology and the Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals (a division of the College), is a peer-reviewed publication that publishes original research, review articles, and editorials that promote excellence in the clinical practice of rheumatology. Relevant to the care of individuals with rheumatic diseases, major topics are evidence-based practice studies, clinical problems, practice guidelines, educational, social, and public health issues, health economics, health care policy, and future trends in rheumatology practice.
期刊最新文献
Impact of sex, serostatus, and smoking on risk for rheumatoid arthritis‐associated interstitial lung disease subtypes Effects of Social Vulnerability and Environmental Burden on Care Fragmentation and Social Needs Among Individuals with Rheumatic Conditions. Prevalence and outcomes of gastrointestinal manifestations in an Australian Scleroderma cohort. The Impact of Pregnancy Readiness on Lupus Activity, Maternal Mental Health, and Pregnancy Outcomes. Utilising Adaptive Choice-Based Conjoint Approach to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making in Osteoarthritis Management: A Patient Perception Study.
×
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