首页> 外文OA文献 >Measurement of damage in systemic vasculitis: a comparison of the Vasculitis Damage Index with the Combined Damage Assessment Index.
【2h】

Measurement of damage in systemic vasculitis: a comparison of the Vasculitis Damage Index with the Combined Damage Assessment Index.

机译:全身性血管炎损害的测量:血管炎损害指数与综合损害评估指数的比较。

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

OBJECTIVES: To compare the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) with the Combined Damage Assessment Index (CDA) as measures of damage from vasculitis. METHODS: A total of 283 patients with vasculitis from 11 European centres were evaluated in a cross-sectional study using the VDI and CDA. RESULTS: Wegener's granulomatosis (58.4%) and microscopic polyangiitis (11.0%) were the most common diagnoses. Agreement between VDI and CDA scores (Spearman's correlation) was 0.90 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.92). There was good correlation between individual comparably evaluated organ systems (Spearman's correlation 0.70-0.94). Interobserver reliability (assessed by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)) was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.98) for VDI and 0.78 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.93) for CDA. Intraobserver reliability was 0.92 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00) for VDI and 0.87 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.00) for CDA. A total of 13 items were not used in the VDI compared to 23 in the CDA. Observers agreed that the CDA covered the full spectrum of damage attributable to vasculitis but was more time consuming and thus possibly less feasible for clinical and research purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The VDI and CDA capture reliable data on damage among patients with vasculitis. The CDA captures more detail but is more complex and less practical than the VDI. Further evolution of damage assessment in vasculitis is likely to include key elements from both instruments.
机译:目的:比较血管炎损害指数(VDI)和综合损害评估指数(CDA),以衡量血管炎造成的损害。方法:使用VDI和CDA在一项横断面研究中评估了来自11个欧洲中心的283例血管炎患者。结果:韦格纳肉芽肿病(58.4%)和镜检性多血管炎(11.0%)是最常见的诊断。 VDI和CDA得分之间的一致性(Spearman相关性)为0.90(95%CI为0.87至0.92)。各个可比较评估的器官系统之间具有良好的相关性(斯皮尔曼相关性0.70-0.94)。 VDI的观察者间可靠性(通过类内相关系数(ICC)评估)为0.94(95%CI 0.89至0.98),而CDA则为0.78(95%CI 0.63至0.93)。对于VDI,观察者内部可靠性为0.92(95%CI为0.83至1.00),对于CDA为0.87(95%CI为0.75至1.00)。 VDI中总共没有使用13个项目,而CDA中则没有使用23个项目。观察家一致认为,CDA涵盖了血管炎引起的全部损害,但更耗时,因此对于临床和研究目的而言可能不太可行。结论:VDI和CDA捕获了有关血管炎患者损害的可靠数据。与VDI相比,CDA可以捕获更多细节,但更为复杂且实用性较低。血管炎损害评估的进一步发展可能包括两种仪器的关键要素。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号