Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Test–retest reliability of the Disease Activity Score 28 CRP (DAS28-CRP), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) in rheumatoid arthritis when based on patient self-assessment of tender and swollen joints

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Composite disease activity scores are frequently used in daily practice as tools for treatment decisions in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). If reliable, patient-reported disease activity may be time saving in the busy clinic. The objective was to examine the test–retest reliability of the Disease Activity Score 28 CRP (DAS28-CRP) with four variables (4v) and three variables (3v), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) when based on patient self-assessment of tender and swollen joints and to examine the agreement between these scores and physician-derived scores. Thirty out-clinic RA patients with stable disease were included. A joint count was performed two times 1 week apart by the patient and by an experienced physician. Test–retest reliability was expressed as the least significant difference (LSD), as the LSD in percent of the mean score (%LSD) and as intra-individual coefficients of variation (CVi). Mean scores based on physician vs. patient joint counts (visit 1) were: DAS28-CRP(4v) 3.5 ± 1.0 vs. 3.6 ± 1.1 (not significant (NS)), DAS28-CRP(3v) 3.4 ± 0.9 vs. 3.5 ± 0.9 (NS), SDAI 14.2 ± 9.4 vs.14.1 ± 9.4 (NS) and CDAI 13.4 ± 9.3 vs. 13.3 ± 9.4 (NS). The LSDs (%LSD) for duplicate assessments of patient-derived scores (visit 2 vs. 1) were: DAS28-CRP(4v) 0.8 (23.2), DAS28-CRP(3v) 0.9 (25.2), SDAI 8.3 (59.9) and CDAI 8.4 (63.8). Similar LSDs were found for differences between duplicate assessments of physician-derived scores and for differences between physician and patient-derived scores. CVis for SDAI and CDAI were significantly higher than for DAS28-CRP(4v) and DAS28-CRP(3v) (p < 0.005). Patient- and physician-derived scores agreed closely on group level. On the individual level, the LSDs between patient- and physician-derived scores were considerable but corresponded to both patient and physician intra-observer LSDs. Thus, scores based on patient-performed joint counts may be an alternative to traditional physician-derived scores in patients with stable disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Felson DT, Anderson JJ, Boers M et al (1993) The American College of Rheumatology preliminary core set of disease activity measures for rheumatoid arthritis clinical trials. The Committee on Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials. Arthritis Rheum 36:729–740

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Prevoo ML, Van'tHof MA, Kuper HH et al (1995) 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 38:44–48

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Fransen J, Welksing PMJ, de Keijzer RMH et al (2003) Disease activity scores using C-reactive protein: CRP may replace ESR in the assessment of RA disease activity. Ann Rheum Dis 62:151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. http://www.das-score.nl/www.das-score.nl/. Accessed 4 Feb 2013

  5. Madsen OR (2011) Is DAS28-CRP with three and four variables interchangeable in individual patients selected for biological treatment in daily clinical practice? Clin Rheumatol 30:1577–1582

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aletaha D, Smolen J (2005) The Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI): a review of their usefulness and validity in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol 23(Suppl 39):S100–S108

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Osborne RH, Wilson T, Lorig KR et al (2007) Does self-management lead to sustainable health benefits in people with arthritis? A 2-year transition study of 452 Australians. J Rheumatol 34:1112–1117

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Solomon M, Wagner SL, Goes J (2012) Effects of a Web-based intervention for adults with chronic conditions on patient activation: online randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 14:e32

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Bland JM, Altman DG (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1:307–310

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Glüer CC, Blake G, Lu Y et al (1995) Accurate assessment of precision errors: how to measure the reproducibility of bone densitometry techniques. Osteoporos Int 5:262–270

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Madsen OR (1996) Trunk extensor and flexor strength measured by the Cybex 6000 dynamometer. Assessment of short-term and long-term reproducibility of several strength variables. Spine 21:2770–2776

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Pease C, Pope JE, Truong D et al (2011) Comparison of anti-TNF treatment initiation in rheumatoid arthritis databases demonstrates wide country variability in patient parameters at initiation of anti-TNF therapy. Semin Arthritis Rheum 41:81–89

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Orlewska E, Ancuta I, Anic B et al (2011) Access to biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis in Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. Med Sci Monit 17:SR1–SR13

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Barton JL, Criswell LA, Kaiser R et al (2009) Systematic review and metaanalysis of patient self-report versus trained assessor joint counts in rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 36:2635–2641

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Radner H, Grisar J, Smolen JS et al (2012) Value of self-performed joint counts in rheumatoid arthritis patients near remission. Arthritis Res Ther 14:R61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. van Gestel AM, Prevoo ML, van’t Hof MA et al (1996) Development and validation of the European League Against Rheumatism response criteria for rheumatoid arthritis. Comparison with the preliminary American College of Rheumatology and the World Health Organization/International League Against Rheumatism Criteria. Arthritis Rheum 39:34–40

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Uhlig T, Kvien TK, Pincus T (2009) Test–retest reliability of disease activity core set measures and indices in rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis 68:972–975

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Aletaha D, Martinez-Avila J, Kvien TK et al (2012) Definition of treatment response in rheumatoid arthritis based on the simplified and the clinical disease activity index. Ann Rheum Dis 71:1190–1196

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Statistics notes: measurement error. BMJ 313:744

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Magid E, Petersen PH, Christensen M (1992) A note on the theory of reference changes. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 52(Suppl 208):95–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Nilas L, Hassager C, Christiansen C (1988) Long-term precision of dual energy X-ray absorptiometry in the lumbar spine in clinical settings. Bone Miner 3:305–315

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Walsh CA, Mullan RH, Minnock PB et al (2008) Consistency in assessing the disease activity score-28 in routine clinical practice. Ann Rheum Dis 67:135–136

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Bland JM, Altman DG (1996) Measurement error and correlation coefficients. BMJ 313:41–42

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Disclosures

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ole Rintek Madsen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Heegaard, C., Dreyer, L., Egsmose, C. et al. Test–retest reliability of the Disease Activity Score 28 CRP (DAS28-CRP), the Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI) and the Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI) in rheumatoid arthritis when based on patient self-assessment of tender and swollen joints. Clin Rheumatol 32, 1493–1500 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-013-2300-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10067-013-2300-9

Keywords

Navigation