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.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 RHEUMATOLOGY
Gustavo G M Balbi, Pedro Gaspar, Hannah Cohen, David A Isenberg, Doruk Erkan, Danieli Andrade
{"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":"2024-12-04","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":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RHEUMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
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.
×
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