Contribution of assessing forefoot joints in early rheumatoid arthritis patients: Insights from item response theory

Arthritis Care and Research

Volumn 65, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 212-219

  Siemons, Liseth ^a   Ten Klooster, Peter M ^a   Taal, Erik ^a   Kuper, Ina H ^b   Van Riel, Piet L C M ^c   Glas, Cees A W ^a   Van De Laar, Mart A F J ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^b MEDISCH SPECTRUM TWENTE   (Netherlands)

^c RADBOUD UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTHRALGIA; ARTICLE; DISEASE ACTIVITY; FEMALE; FOREFOOT; HUMAN; JOINT SWELLING; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MEASUREMENT PRECISION; REMISSION; RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS;

ADULT; AGED; ARTHRITIS, RHEUMATOID; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; FOOT JOINTS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX;

EID: 84873148973     PISSN: 2151464X     EISSN: 21514658     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/acr.21795     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Prevoo ML, van 't Hof MA, Kuper HH, van Leeuwen MA, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL,. Modified disease activity scores that include twenty-eight-joint counts: development and validation in a prospective longitudinal study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 44-8.
2. Bakker MF, Jacobs JW, Kruize AA, van der Veen MJ, van Booma-Frankfort C, Vreugdenhil SA, et al. Misclassification of disease activity when assessing individual patients with early rheumatoid arthritis using disease activity indices that do not include joints of feet. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 830-5.
3. Landewe R, van der Heijde D, van der Linden S, Boers M,. Twenty-eight-joint counts invalidate the DAS28 remission definition owing to the omission of the lower extremity joints: a comparison with the original DAS remission. Ann Rheum Dis 2006; 65: 637-41.
4. Makinen H, Kautiainen H, Hannonen P, Sokka T,. Is DAS28 an appropriate tool to assess remission in rheumatoid arthritis? Ann Rheum Dis 2005; 64: 1410-3.
5. Smolen JS, Breedveld FC, Eberl G, Jones I, Leeming M, Wylie GL, et al. Validity and reliability of the twenty-eight-joint count for the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis activity. Arthritis Rheum 1995; 38: 38-43.
6. Van der Leeden M, Steultjens MP, Ursum J, Dahmen R, Roorda LD, van Schaardenburg D, et al. Prevalence and course of forefoot impairments and walking disability in the first eight years of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 2008; 59: 1596-602.
7. Fuchs HA, Brooks RH, Callahan LF, Pincus T,. A simplified twenty-eight-joint quantitative articular index in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1989; 32: 531-7.
8. Van Tuyl LH, Britsemmer K, Wells GA, Smolen JS, Zhang B, Funovits J, et al. Remission in early rheumatoid arthritis defined by 28 joint counts: limited consequences of residual disease activity in the forefeet on outcome. Ann Rheum Dis 2012; 71: 33-7.
9. Thompson PW, Kirwan JR,. Joint count: a review of old and new articular indices of joint inflammation. Br J Rheumatol 1995; 34: 1003-8.
10. Fuchs HA, Pincus T,. Reduced joint counts in controlled clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1994; 37: 470-5.
11. Prevoo ML, van Riel PL, van 't Hof MA, van Rijswijk MH, van Leeuwen MA, Kuper HH, et al. Validity and reliability of joint indices: a longitudinal study in patients with recent onset rheumatoid arthritis. Br J Rheumatol 1993; 32: 589-94.
12. Vermeer M, Kuper HH, Hoekstra M, Haagsma CJ, Posthumus MD, Brus HL, et al. Implementation of a treat-to-target strategy in very early rheumatoid arthritis: results of the Dutch Rheumatoid Arthritis Monitoring remission induction cohort study. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 2865-72.
13. Felson DT, Smolen JS, Wells G, Zhang B, van Tuyl LH, Funovits J, et al. American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism provisional definition of remission in rheumatoid arthritis for clinical trials. Arthritis Rheum 2011; 63: 573-86.
14. Muraki E,. A generalized partial credit model: application of an EM algorithm. Appl Psychol Meas 1992; 16: 159-76.
15. Glas CA,. Modification indices for the 2-pl and the nominal response model. Psychometrika 1999; 64: 273-94.
16. Van Groen MM, ten Klooster PM, Taal E, van de Laar MA, Glas CA,. Application of the Health Assessment Questionnaire disability index to various rheumatic diseases. Qual Life Res 2010; 19: 1255-63.
17. Siemons L, ten Klooster PM, Taal E, Kuper IH, van Riel PL, van de Laar MA, et al. Validating the 28-tender joint count using item response theory. J Rheumatol 2011; 38: 2557-64.
18. Scheerens J, Glas CA, Thomas SM,. Educational evaluation, assessment, and monitoring: a systematic approach. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger; 2003.
19. Tennant A, Conaghan PG,. The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: what is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Rheum 2007; 57: 1358-62.
20. Reeve BB, Fayers P,. Applying item response theory modelling for evaluating questionnaire item and scale properties. In:, Fayers PM, Hays RD, editors. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials: methods and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005. p. 55-73.
21. Glas CA,. Multidimensional item response theory. 2010. URL: http://www.utwente.nl/gw/omd/afdeling/Glas/.
22. Kapral T, Dernoschnig F, Machold KP, Stamm T, Schoels M, Smolen JS, et al. Remission by composite scores in rheumatoid arthritis: are ankles and feet important? Arthritis Res Ther 2007; 9: R72.
23. Van Riel PL, Fransen J, Scott DL,. EULAR handbook of clinical assessments in rheumatoid arthritis. Alphen aan den Rijn: van Zuiden Communications; 2004.
24. Aletaha D, Neogi T, Silman AJ, Funovits J, Felson DT, Bingham CO III, et al. 2010 rheumatoid arthritis classification criteria: an American College of Rheumatology/European League Against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum 2010; 62: 2569-81.