Smallest detectable difference in radiological progression.

Omeract IV started a discussion on the development of radiological response criteria in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Such criteria depend on the definition of what constitutes the minimum clinically important progression of damage. Because such a definition is currently not available, as a first step we have used the concept of random measurement error to determine what is the smallest detectable difference (SDD) in radiological progression between 2 radiographs of a particular patient. Baseline and 12 month radiographs (hands, wrists, feet) of 52 patients representative of the spectrum of radiological progression were selected from a randomized controlled trial of early rheumatoid arthritis (COBRA study) and were read paired and chronologically by 2 observers using the van der Heijde modified Sharp method (0-448 scale) and another 2 observers using the Scott modified Larsen method (0-200). The measurement error of progression was determined using the metric 95% limits of agreement method of Bland and Altman. In the setting of early RA the SDD is 11 modified Sharp score units and 8 modified Larsen score units if there is an equal distribution of baseline damage and progression in the sample and the mean score of the same trained observers is always used. The SDD is 15.5 modified Sharp score units and 11 modified Larsen score units if there is an equal distribution of baseline damage and progression in the sample and the mean score of any 2 trained observers is used. Other SDD were determined depending on the context of measurement. Although this exercise needs repetition in other settings, the SDD is a useful starting point in the development of radiological response criteria.

[1]  A. Saudan,et al.  Introduction to reading radiographs by the Scott modification of the Larsen method. , 1999, The Journal of rheumatology.

[2]  D. M. van der Heijde,et al.  Methodological issues in radiographic scoring methods in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1999, The Journal of rheumatology.

[3]  P. Tugwell,et al.  The OMERACT filter for Outcome Measures in Rheumatology. , 1998, The Journal of rheumatology.

[4]  S. van der Linden,et al.  Randomised comparison of combined step-down prednisolone, methotrexate and sulphasalazine with sulphasalazine alone in early rheumatoid arthritis , 1997, The Lancet.

[5]  K. Eberhardt,et al.  Development of radiographic damage during the first 5-6 yr of rheumatoid arthritis. A prospective follow-up study of a Swedish cohort. , 1996, British journal of rheumatology.

[6]  Désirée van der Heijde,et al.  Plain X-rays in rheumatoid arthritis: overview of scoring methods, their reliability and applicability. , 1996 .

[7]  M. Dougados,et al.  Radiological progression of hip osteoarthritis: definition, risk factors and correlations with clinical status. , 1996, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[8]  H. Trampisch,et al.  How to evaluate measuring methods in the case of non-defined external validity. , 1995, The Journal of rheumatology.

[9]  H. Menninger,et al.  Progression and repair in radiographs of hands and forefeet in early rheumatoid arthritis. , 1995, The Journal of rheumatology.

[10]  J. Coste,et al.  Reliability of Three Methods of Radiologic Assessment in Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis , 1995, Investigative radiology.

[11]  P. Jones,et al.  Measurement and prediction of radiological progression in early rheumatoid arthritis. , 1994, The Journal of rheumatology.

[12]  P. Jones,et al.  The relationship between serial measures of disease activity and outcome in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1993, The Quarterly journal of medicine.

[13]  D A Bloch,et al.  The progression of erosion and joint space narrowing scores in rheumatoid arthritis during the first twenty-five years of disease. , 1991, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[14]  E. Coles,et al.  Precision of Larsen grading of radiographs in assessing progression of rheumatoid arthritis in individual patients. , 1990, Annals of the rheumatic diseases.

[15]  S. Chinn,et al.  The assessment of methods of measurement. , 1990, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  A C Brower,et al.  Use of the radiograph to measure the course of rheumatoid arthritis. The gold standard versus fool's gold. , 1990, Arthritis and rheumatism.

[17]  Sharp Jt Scoring radiographic abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1989 .

[18]  D. Altman,et al.  STATISTICAL METHODS FOR ASSESSING AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO METHODS OF CLINICAL MEASUREMENT , 1986, The Lancet.

[19]  P. Dawes,et al.  Rheumatoid arthritis: treatment which controls the C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate reduces radiological progression. , 1986, British journal of rheumatology.

[20]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Measurement in Medicine: The Analysis of Method Comparison Studies , 1983 .

[21]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[22]  D. M. van der Heijde,et al.  How to read radiographs according to the Sharp/van der Heijde method. , 2000, The Journal of rheumatology.

[23]  J. Sharp Scoring radiographic abnormalities in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1996, The Radiologic clinics of North America.

[24]  D. Altman,et al.  Measurement error. , 1996, BMJ.

[25]  P. Dawes Radiological assessment of outcome in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1988, British journal of rheumatology.

[26]  Dawes Pt Radiological assessment of outcome in rheumatoid arthritis. , 1988 .

[27]  H K Genant,et al.  Reproducibility of multiple-observer scoring of radiologic abnormalities in the hands and wrists of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. , 1985, Arthritis and rheumatism.