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":"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。","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>Objective: </strong>The 2023 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria development, which aimed 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, which are organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of phase III efforts, employing a consensus-based multicriteria 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 patients referred for \"suspected APS\" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank ordered 20 representative patients from highly unlikely to highly likely to have 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 patients by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Premeeting evaluation of 20 representative patients demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 patients 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":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Development of the 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase III-D Report: Multicriteria 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>Objective: </strong>The 2023 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria development, which aimed 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, which are organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of phase III efforts, employing a consensus-based multicriteria 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 patients referred for \\\"suspected APS\\\" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank ordered 20 representative patients from highly unlikely to highly likely to have 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 patients by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Premeeting evaluation of 20 representative patients demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 patients 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\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"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}","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}
Development of the 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase III-D Report: Multicriteria Decision Analysis.
Objective: The 2023 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria development, which aimed 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, which are organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of phase III efforts, employing a consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score.
Methods: We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world patients referred for "suspected APS" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank ordered 20 representative patients from highly unlikely to highly likely to have 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 patients by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set.
Results: Premeeting evaluation of 20 representative patients demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 patients 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.
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.