Search

Objective: To determine the contribution of reassessment in the attribution process of neuropsychiatric (NP) events to SLE or other aetiologies in a large, prospective and multidisciplinary assessed NPSLE cohort and to compare these results with other available attribution models for NP events occurring in SLE., Methods: Three hundred and four consecutive SLE patients presenting NP events were evaluated. All subjects underwent standardized multidisciplinary medical, neuropsychological, laboratory and radiological examination on the inclusion and reassessment dates. Diagnosis was always established by multidisciplinary consensus. The final diagnosis after reassessment also took into account disease course and response to treatment. These data were compared with currently available attribution models for NP events in SLE., Results: A total of 463 NP events were established. After reassessment, attribution to SLE was discordant in 64 (13.8%) NP events when compared with the first visit. We show that 14.5% of NP events previously attributed to SLE reclassified as non-NPSLE. In 86.4% of these patients immunosuppressive therapy was started after the first visit. When reassessment and available attribution models were compared, NPSLE cases overlapped considerably. Although specificity was high for all comparisons (0.81-0.95), an important variation in sensitivity (0.39-0.83) and agreement estimates (κ = 0.29-0.68) was observed. The Italian algorithm showed the highest sensitivity and specificity (>0.80) and moderate agreement (0.59-0.64)., Conclusion: In clinical practice NP events presenting in SLE are too often attributed to an immune-mediated origin. Multidisciplinary reassessment avoids misclassification in NPSLE. Multidisciplinary reassessment is the reference standard in NP events presenting in SLE and cannot be replaced by available attribution models., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com)

Objective: The aim was to assess the validity and responsiveness of the Michigan Hand Questionnaire (MHQ) in patients with SSc., Methods: Data were gathered in connection with a randomized, controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of a 12-week multidisciplinary team care programme, including a hand function treatment module, with regular care. Hand function was evaluated by the MHQ (37 items, six domains: Function, Daily activities, Pain, Work, Aesthetics and Satisfaction) and other measurements, including the HAQ, Hand Mobility in Scleroderma, Sequential Occupational Dexterity Assessment (SODA), grip strength, pinch grip and modified Rodnan Skin Score. Fifty-three patients (28 intervention group and 25 control group) completed evaluation at baseline and after 12 weeks. Validity was determined by computing Spearman correlation coefficients between the baseline MHQ total score and subscales and other measures of (hand) disability. Responsiveness in the intervention group was evaluated by the standardized response mean and effect size (ES). In addition, the pooled ES for the difference between the two groups was computed., Results: Significant correlations were seen between the MHQ total score and the HAQ (r = -0.62), Hand Mobility in Scleroderma (r = -0.54), SODA (r = 0.47), SODA Pain (r = 0.32) and modified Rodnan Skin Score (r = 0.46). The ES of the MHQ total score within the intervention group was 0.49, which was larger than that of all other outcome measures. Similar results were obtained for the standardized response mean. The pooled ES of the difference between intervention and control groups for the MHQ total score was 0.86., Conclusion: The MHQ demonstrated adequate validity and responsiveness in patients with SSc., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)