This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Corzillius, M Articles by Stucki, G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Corzillius, M Articles by Stucki, G Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Lupus Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Responsiveness and sensitivity to change of SLE disease activity measures

II. Department of Internal Medicine, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Chemnitzstr. 33, 24116 Kiel, Germany m.corzillius{at}med2.uni-kiel.de

P Fortin

Divisions of Rheumatology and Clinical Epidemiology, McGill University Health Centre, Department of Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

G Stucki

Ludwig Maximilian-University, Department of Physical Medicine, Munich, Germany

The ability of outcome measures to detect change over time is critical for their usefulness in clinical trials. Two concepts are applied in the assessment of evaluative instruments: We endorse the recommendation that a distinction be made between sensitivity and responsiveness. Sensitivity to change refers to the capacity of instruments to measure change statistically. Sensitivity statistics relate the magnitude of observed change to some measure of variablity and are essentially signal-to-noise ratios. Responsiveness addresses the detection of clinically relevant change. The methodology is still evolving but a common approach has been to correlate the observed change in scores with external standards that are believed to indicate clinical relevance (e.g., physician-or patient-based transition scales).

Sensitivity to change and responsiveness of SLE activity indices have been addressed in a small number of studies. These indicate that the most widely used systems (SLEDAI. SLAM, BILAG) are sensitive to change although the available evidence does not allow preference for one instrument over the others. Little research has been done on the responsiveness of these measures.

This article reviews the methodological concepts in measuringclinical change and summarizes reports on sensitivity and responsiveness of lupus activity scores.

Key Words: SLE • diseaseactivity • outcomemeasures • responsiveness

Lupus, Vol. 8, No. 8, 655-659 (1999)
DOI: 10.1191/096120399680411416


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Minnock, J. Kirwan, and B. Bresnihan Fatigue is a reliable, sensitive and unique outcome measure in rheumatoid arthritis Rheumatology, December 1, 2009; 48(12): 1533 - 1536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G. Barosi, D. Bordessoule, J. Briere, F. Cervantes, J.-L. Demory, B. Dupriez, H. Gisslinger, M. Griesshammer, H. Hasselbalch, R. Kusec, et al. Response criteria for myelofibrosis with myeloid metaplasia: results of an initiative of the European Myelofibrosis Network (EUMNET) Blood, October 15, 2005; 106(8): 2849 - 2853. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				G Ruiz-Irastorza and M A Khamashta Evaluation of systemic lupus erythematosus activity during pregnancy Lupus, September 1, 2004; 13(9): 679 - 682. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J Schiffenbauer and L S Simon Randomized controlled trials in systemic lupus erythematosus: what has been done and what do we need to do? Lupus, May 1, 2004; 13(5): 398 - 405. [Abstract] [PDF]