抗磷脂综合征损伤指数(DIAPS):抗磷脂综合征临床试验和国际网络联盟(APS ACTION)“损害”工作组报告的优势和局限性。

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-04 DOI:10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152605
Gustavo G M Balbi, Pedro Gaspar, Hannah Cohen, David A Isenberg, Doruk Erkan, Danieli Andrade
{"title":"抗磷脂综合征损伤指数(DIAPS):抗磷脂综合征临床试验和国际网络联盟(APS ACTION)“损害”工作组报告的优势和局限性。","authors":"Gustavo G M Balbi, Pedro Gaspar, Hannah Cohen, David A Isenberg, Doruk Erkan, Danieli Andrade","doi":"10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152605","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To gather the perspectives of APS ACTION members regarding the strengths and limitations of Damage Index for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (DIAPS); and establish recommendations for the improvement of DIAPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>APS ACTION members were invited to answer a survey regarding their satisfaction with DIAPS scoring system and individual items. The level of agreement (LoA) among members with the inclusion of individual items in DIAPS was calculated (LoA of <75% was considered disagreement). Respondents' open-ended comments about DIAPS limitations were also collected, which helped formulate our recommendations for DIAPS improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-two APS ACTION members (58.3%) answered the survey. Of them, 26 (61.9%) were satisfied, 4 (9.5%) were neutral, and 12 (28.6%) were dissatisfied with the current DIAPS scoring system. Fifteen items (39.5%) presented a LoA <75% regarding the inclusion in DIAPS. Respondents provided comments that were grouped under six main categories related to concerns about: a) definitions and attribution of damage (including causality and temporal relationship); b) scoring system; c) overlapping items; d) specific items (exclusion of redundant items and inclusion of additional ones); e) the need to incorporate multiple events; and f) feasibility and practicality. Finally, the APS ACTION \"Damage\" Working Group developed 7 recommendations that should be considered for the next generation DIAPS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Approximately 60% of respondents were satisfied with DIAPS and its definitions; however, our survey demonstrated that there is substantial room to improve the current damage index for APS. Efforts for updating DIAPS should consider the APS ACTION \"Damage\" Working Group recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":21715,"journal":{"name":"Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism","volume":"70 ","pages":"152605"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Damage Index for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (DIAPS): An Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) \\\"Damage\\\" working group report on strengths and limitations.\",\"authors\":\"Gustavo G M Balbi, Pedro Gaspar, Hannah Cohen, David A Isenberg, Doruk Erkan, Danieli Andrade\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152605\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To gather the perspectives of APS ACTION members regarding the strengths and limitations of Damage Index for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (DIAPS); and establish recommendations for the improvement of DIAPS.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>APS ACTION members were invited to answer a survey regarding their satisfaction with DIAPS scoring system and individual items. The level of agreement (LoA) among members with the inclusion of individual items in DIAPS was calculated (LoA of <75% was considered disagreement). Respondents' open-ended comments about DIAPS limitations were also collected, which helped formulate our recommendations for DIAPS improvement.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-two APS ACTION members (58.3%) answered the survey. Of them, 26 (61.9%) were satisfied, 4 (9.5%) were neutral, and 12 (28.6%) were dissatisfied with the current DIAPS scoring system. Fifteen items (39.5%) presented a LoA <75% regarding the inclusion in DIAPS. Respondents provided comments that were grouped under six main categories related to concerns about: a) definitions and attribution of damage (including causality and temporal relationship); b) scoring system; c) overlapping items; d) specific items (exclusion of redundant items and inclusion of additional ones); e) the need to incorporate multiple events; and f) feasibility and practicality. Finally, the APS ACTION \\\"Damage\\\" Working Group developed 7 recommendations that should be considered for the next generation DIAPS.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Approximately 60% of respondents were satisfied with DIAPS and its definitions; however, our survey demonstrated that there is substantial room to improve the current damage index for APS. Efforts for updating DIAPS should consider the APS ACTION \\\"Damage\\\" Working Group recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21715,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism\",\"volume\":\"70 \",\"pages\":\"152605\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152605\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/4 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"RHEUMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Seminars in arthritis and rheumatism","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152605","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/4 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:收集APS ACTION成员对抗磷脂综合征损伤指数(DIAPS)的优势和局限性的看法;并提出改进DIAPS的建议。方法:邀请APS ACTION会员就其对DIAPS评分系统和单项项目的满意度进行问卷调查。计算成员对DIAPS中个别项目的同意程度(LoA)(结果LoA: 42名APS ACTION成员(58.3%)回答了调查)。其中满意26人(61.9%),一般4人(9.5%),不满意12人(28.6%)。15个项目(39.5%)给出了LoA结论:约60%的受访者对DIAPS及其定义感到满意;然而,我们的调查显示,APS目前的伤害指数还有很大的提升空间。更新DIAPS的工作应考虑APS ACTION“损害”工作组的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Damage Index for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (DIAPS): An Antiphospholipid Syndrome Alliance for Clinical Trials and International Networking (APS ACTION) "Damage" working group report on strengths and limitations.

Objectives: To gather the perspectives of APS ACTION members regarding the strengths and limitations of Damage Index for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (DIAPS); and establish recommendations for the improvement of DIAPS.

Methods: APS ACTION members were invited to answer a survey regarding their satisfaction with DIAPS scoring system and individual items. The level of agreement (LoA) among members with the inclusion of individual items in DIAPS was calculated (LoA of <75% was considered disagreement). Respondents' open-ended comments about DIAPS limitations were also collected, which helped formulate our recommendations for DIAPS improvement.

Results: Forty-two APS ACTION members (58.3%) answered the survey. Of them, 26 (61.9%) were satisfied, 4 (9.5%) were neutral, and 12 (28.6%) were dissatisfied with the current DIAPS scoring system. Fifteen items (39.5%) presented a LoA <75% regarding the inclusion in DIAPS. Respondents provided comments that were grouped under six main categories related to concerns about: a) definitions and attribution of damage (including causality and temporal relationship); b) scoring system; c) overlapping items; d) specific items (exclusion of redundant items and inclusion of additional ones); e) the need to incorporate multiple events; and f) feasibility and practicality. Finally, the APS ACTION "Damage" Working Group developed 7 recommendations that should be considered for the next generation DIAPS.

Conclusion: Approximately 60% of respondents were satisfied with DIAPS and its definitions; however, our survey demonstrated that there is substantial room to improve the current damage index for APS. Efforts for updating DIAPS should consider the APS ACTION "Damage" Working Group recommendations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
4.00%
发文量
176
审稿时长
46 days
期刊介绍: Seminars in Arthritis and Rheumatism provides access to the highest-quality clinical, therapeutic and translational research about arthritis, rheumatology and musculoskeletal disorders that affect the joints and connective tissue. Each bimonthly issue includes articles giving you the latest diagnostic criteria, consensus statements, systematic reviews and meta-analyses as well as clinical and translational research studies. Read this journal for the latest groundbreaking research and to gain insights from scientists and clinicians on the management and treatment of musculoskeletal and autoimmune rheumatologic diseases. The journal is of interest to rheumatologists, orthopedic surgeons, internal medicine physicians, immunologists and specialists in bone and mineral metabolism.
期刊最新文献
Microbial pathways contributing to the pathogenesis of rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease: Advancing the identification and management. The cause is worse than the effect: Inequities in the United States health system; how could we change them? Metabolic checkpoints in rheumatoid arthritis. Promises and pitfalls of artificial intelligence models in forecasting rheumatoid arthritis treatment response and outcomes.
×
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