학술논문
Identifying Potential Classification Criteria for Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease: Item Generation and Item Reduction.
Document Type
article
Author
Tedeschi, Sara; Pascart, Tristan; Latourte, Augustin; Godsave, Cattleya; Kundakci, Burak; Naden, Raymond; Taylor, William; Dalbeth, Nicola; Neogi, Tuhina; Perez-Ruiz, Fernando; Rosenthal, Ann; Becce, Fabio; Pascual, Eliseo; Andres, Mariano; Bardin, Thomas; Doherty, Michael; Ea, Hang-Korng; Filippou, Georgios; Guitierrez, Marwin; Iagnocco, Annamaria; Jansen, Tim; Kohler, Minna; Lioté, Frédéric; Matza, Mark; McCarthy, Geraldine; Ramonda, Roberta; Reginato, Anthony; Richette, Pascal; Singh, Jasvinder; Sivera, Francisca; So, Alexander; Stamp, Lisa; Yinh, Janeth; Yokose, Chio; Choi, Hyon; Abhishek, Abhishek; Terkeltaub, Robert; FitzGerald, John
Source
Arthritis Care & Research. 74(10)
Subject
Language
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease will facilitate clinical research on this common crystalline arthritis. Our objective was to report on the first 2 phases of a 4-phase process for developing CPPD classification criteria. METHODS: CPPD classification criteria development is overseen by a 12-member steering committee. Item generation (phase I) included a scoping literature review of 5 literature databases and contributions from a 35-member combined expert committee and 2 patient research partners. Item reduction and refinement (phase II) involved a combined expert committee meeting, discussions among clinical, imaging, and laboratory advisory groups, and an item-rating exercise to assess the influence of individual items toward classification. The steering committee reviewed the modal rating score for each item (range -3 [strongly pushes away from CPPD] to +3 [strongly pushes toward CPPD]) to determine items to retain for future phases of criteria development. RESULTS: Item generation yielded 420 items (312 from the literature, 108 from experts/patients). The advisory groups eliminated items that they agreed were unlikely to distinguish between CPPD and other forms of arthritis, yielding 127 items for the item-rating exercise. Fifty-six items, most of which had a modal rating of +/- 2 or 3, were retained for future phases. As numerous imaging items were rated +3, the steering committee recommended focusing on imaging of the knee and wrist and 1 additional affected joint for calcification suggestive of CPP crystal deposition. CONCLUSION: A data- and expert-driven process is underway to develop CPPD classification criteria. Candidate items comprise clinical, imaging, and laboratory features.