A comparison of three physician global assessment instruments in systemic sclerosis.

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY
Laura Ross, Dylan Hansen, Susanna Proudman, Jennifer Walker, Kimti Kumar, Wendy Stevens, Nava Ferdowsi, Joanne Sahhar, Gene-Siew Ngian, Diane Apostolopoulos, Lauren V Host, Kathleen Morrisroe, Gabor Major, Murray Baron, Mandana Nikpour
{"title":"A comparison of three physician global assessment instruments in systemic sclerosis.","authors":"Laura Ross, Dylan Hansen, Susanna Proudman, Jennifer Walker, Kimti Kumar, Wendy Stevens, Nava Ferdowsi, Joanne Sahhar, Gene-Siew Ngian, Diane Apostolopoulos, Lauren V Host, Kathleen Morrisroe, Gabor Major, Murray Baron, Mandana Nikpour","doi":"10.1002/acr.25427","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Physician global assessments (PhyGA) are variably applied in systemic sclerosis (SSc) clinical trials. The comparability of different PhyGA results is unknown. We sought to assess the comparability of results from three different PhyGA instruments simultaneously applied in the Australian Scleroderma Cohort Study (ASCS).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using data from 1,965 ASCS participants, we assessed the correlation between results of three PhyGA assessments: (1) overall health; (2) activity; (3) damage. We evaluated the concordance of change in each PhyGA between study visits. Ordered logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the clinical associations of each PhyGA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The absolute scores of each PhyGA were strongly correlated at individual study visits. Concordant change of the PhyGA scores occurred between 50% of study visits. Only patient-reported breathlessness was associated with all three PhyGA scores (overall health: OR 1.67, p<0.01; activity: OR 1.44, p<0.01; damage: OR 1.32, p<0.01). Change in physician-assessed activity scores was also associated with patient-reported worsening skin disease (OR 1.25, p=0.03) and faecal incontinence (OR 1.23, p=0.01), whereas damage scores were associated with respiratory disease (pulmonary arterial hypertension: OR 1.25, p=0.03; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: OR 1.37, p=0.04) as well as skin scores (OR 1.02, p<0.01) and faecal incontinence (OR 1.21, p=0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Physician global assessments of each of overall health, activity and damage are associated with different SSc features, and change in different PhyGA scores is discordant 50% of the time. Our findings suggest results of variably worded PhyGAs are not directly interchangeable and support the development of a standardised PhyGA.</p>","PeriodicalId":8406,"journal":{"name":"Arthritis Care & Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-03","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.25427","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Physician global assessments (PhyGA) are variably applied in systemic sclerosis (SSc) clinical trials. The comparability of different PhyGA results is unknown. We sought to assess the comparability of results from three different PhyGA instruments simultaneously applied in the Australian Scleroderma Cohort Study (ASCS).

Methods: Using data from 1,965 ASCS participants, we assessed the correlation between results of three PhyGA assessments: (1) overall health; (2) activity; (3) damage. We evaluated the concordance of change in each PhyGA between study visits. Ordered logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the clinical associations of each PhyGA.

Results: The absolute scores of each PhyGA were strongly correlated at individual study visits. Concordant change of the PhyGA scores occurred between 50% of study visits. Only patient-reported breathlessness was associated with all three PhyGA scores (overall health: OR 1.67, p<0.01; activity: OR 1.44, p<0.01; damage: OR 1.32, p<0.01). Change in physician-assessed activity scores was also associated with patient-reported worsening skin disease (OR 1.25, p=0.03) and faecal incontinence (OR 1.23, p=0.01), whereas damage scores were associated with respiratory disease (pulmonary arterial hypertension: OR 1.25, p=0.03; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: OR 1.37, p=0.04) as well as skin scores (OR 1.02, p<0.01) and faecal incontinence (OR 1.21, p=0.02).

Conclusion: Physician global assessments of each of overall health, activity and damage are associated with different SSc features, and change in different PhyGA scores is discordant 50% of the time. Our findings suggest results of variably worded PhyGAs are not directly interchangeable and support the development of a standardised PhyGA.

系统性硬化症三种医生总体评估工具的比较。
目的:在系统性硬化症(SSc)临床试验中,医生全局评估(PhyGA)的应用各不相同。不同 PhyGA 结果的可比性尚不清楚。我们试图评估同时应用于澳大利亚硬皮病队列研究(ASCS)的三种不同 PhyGA 工具得出的结果的可比性:方法:我们利用 1,965 名 ASCS 参与者的数据,评估了三种 PhyGA 评估结果之间的相关性:(1) 整体健康;(2) 活动;(3) 损伤。我们还评估了研究访问期间每项 PhyGA 变化的一致性。我们使用有序逻辑回归分析来评估每项PhyGA的临床关联性:结果:在各次检查中,每个 PhyGA 的绝对得分都有很强的相关性。50%的研究访问中,PhyGA评分出现了一致的变化。只有患者报告的呼吸困难与所有三项 PhyGA 评分相关(总体健康:OR 1.67,P<0.05):OR 1.67,p结论:医生对总体健康、活动和损害的全面评估与不同的 SSc 特征相关,不同 PhyGA 评分的变化在 50% 的时间内不一致。我们的研究结果表明,不同措辞的PhyGAs结果不能直接互换,因此支持开发标准化的PhyGA。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
6.40%
发文量
368
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
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.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信