1995
DOI: 10.1002/art.1780380106
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Validity and reliability of the twenty-eight-joint count for the assessment of rheumatoid arthritis activity

Abstract: Objective. To investigate the validity of the 28-joint count for assessment of joint involvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Methods. Joint involvement as determined by the 28-and the 66/68-joint count was compared using data from 735 prospectively studied RA patients.Results. The joints included in the 28-joint count were more commonly involved than other joints, and findings from the 28-joint count correlated highly with those from the 66/68-joint count in all analyses.Conclusion. The 28-joint… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
121
0
9

Year Published

1998
1998
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 241 publications
(134 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
4
121
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…This study gives new methodologic support to earlier research showing that the reduced 28-joint counts can be useful for assessing baseline disease activity at a population level (e.g., as indicators of hospital performance or in clinical trials), but that more extensive joint counts might be preferable for following the disease course of the patients in daily clinical practice (5,23). Since foot joints, particularly the MTP joints, are commonly affected in RA (5), the main interest of this study was in the effect of the inclusion of forefoot joints on the measurement range and measurement precision of the joint count.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 70%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This study gives new methodologic support to earlier research showing that the reduced 28-joint counts can be useful for assessing baseline disease activity at a population level (e.g., as indicators of hospital performance or in clinical trials), but that more extensive joint counts might be preferable for following the disease course of the patients in daily clinical practice (5,23). Since foot joints, particularly the MTP joints, are commonly affected in RA (5), the main interest of this study was in the effect of the inclusion of forefoot joints on the measurement range and measurement precision of the joint count.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 70%
“…However, practical constraints, extra administration time, assessment difficulty, and the recognition that abnormalities in the feet may often result from processes other than RA are all reasons for their frequent exclusion from the joint counts (7)(8)(9)(10). Furthermore, various studies have shown that reduced joint counts that exclude the forefoot joints appear to be as reliable and valid as more comprehensive joint counts (1,5,7,11). Nevertheless, the exclusion of the forefoot joints remains a topic of debate and research.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Disease activity was evaluated at baseline by the Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28) (37) in patients with RA and by the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index (BASDAI) (38) in patients with PsA and AS.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinical assessments were performed at baseline and after 4, 12 (end of treatment phase), and 16 weeks, and included a 30-joint count (28-joint count [27] and both ankles) for joint swelling and tenderness, and physician and patient assessment of disease activity, morning stiffness, pain assessed by a visual analog scale (VAS), and serum levels of serum C-reactive protein (CRP). The clinical effect after treatment was calculated using the Disease Activity Score (DAS) (28), with CRP as the acute-phase reactant and 28 joints counted.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%