2021
DOI: 10.1016/j.reumae.2019.05.006
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of a risk indicator score for the identification of interstitial lung disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 27 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Compared with HRCT, a predictive score based on sex, age at RA onset, RA Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28‐ESR), and the MUC5B rs35705950 risk allele had 75% sensitivity and 85% specificity for identifying RA‐ILD (15), but this tool may be difficult to apply in clinical practice. A risk score based on sex, smoking status, extraarticular manifestations, a clinical disease activity index score, and ESR had 90% sensitivity and 64% specificity for identifying RA‐ILD (49). A model based on sex, smoking status, rheumatoid factor, C‐reactive protein, and matrix metalloproteinase‐3 had a C‐index of 0.826 for accuracy to detect RA‐ILD compared with assessment by a multidisciplinary team (50).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Compared with HRCT, a predictive score based on sex, age at RA onset, RA Disease Activity Score in 28 joints using the erythrocyte sedimentation rate (DAS28‐ESR), and the MUC5B rs35705950 risk allele had 75% sensitivity and 85% specificity for identifying RA‐ILD (15), but this tool may be difficult to apply in clinical practice. A risk score based on sex, smoking status, extraarticular manifestations, a clinical disease activity index score, and ESR had 90% sensitivity and 64% specificity for identifying RA‐ILD (49). A model based on sex, smoking status, rheumatoid factor, C‐reactive protein, and matrix metalloproteinase‐3 had a C‐index of 0.826 for accuracy to detect RA‐ILD compared with assessment by a multidisciplinary team (50).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%