ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 2786

Review Of The Expert Panel Methodology In The Diagnostic and Classification Criteria For Vasculitis Study: A Pilot Study

Cristina Ponte1, Anthea Craven2, Joanna Robson2, Peter C. Grayson3, Ravi Suppiah4, Richard A. Watts5, Peter A. Merkel6 and Raashid A. Luqmani2, 1Rheumatology and Metabolic Bone Diseases Department, Hospital de Santa Maria, CHLN and Rheumatology Research Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal, 2Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, Botnar Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom, 3Section of Rheumatology & the Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Boston University School of Medicine, Vasculitis Center, Boston, MA, 4Department of Rheumatology, Auckland District Health Board, Auckland, New Zealand, 5Rheumatology Department Ipswich Hospital and University of East Anglia, Ipswich, United Kingdom, 6Division of Rheumatology, Vasculitis Center, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA

Meeting: 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: classification criteria, Diagnostic criteria, pilot study and vasculitis

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Title: Vasculitis III

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose:

The Diagnostic and Classification Criteria for Vasculitis (DCVAS) Study is a multinational observational study to develop diagnostic criteria and to update classification criteria for the primary systemic vasculitides.

By 2015 the database will include clinical, laboratory and radiology data from over 2000 patients with vasculitis and 1500 comparator patients who present with features similar to vasculitis. To avoid the inherent circularity of using the submitting physician diagnosis as the gold standard, a reference diagnosis for each patient will be established using a combination of expert panel opinion and data-driven methods (e.g. machine learning algorithms). 

The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the methodology by which the expert panel will assess individual patient data to establish the reference diagnosis.  

Methods:

By November 2012, 1662 patients had been recruited; 391 had complete 6 month follow-up data. Forty cases were randomly extracted and developed into clinical vignettes (CVs). The CVs were assessed for diagnoses by 6 independent experts using an online platform. Ten patients were assessed by all experts and the other 30 were each assessed by 2 of the 6 experts, randomly chosen. The experts first chose between primary vasculitis, secondary vasculitis, or other illness; then the respective major class (small-, medium-, or large-vessel vasculitis, or no predominant size vasculitis); and then the subtype or the specific disease for each category. For each answer a level of certainty (unlikely, possible, probable, definitive, or unknown) was provided. The diagnoses of the expert panel and the submitting physician were compared.

Results:

The 40 clinical vignettes represented 26 women and 14 men, with a mean age of 62.5 ± 20.3 years (range 20-86 years). Data from all 120 CV reviews were available for analysis. Treating clinicians submitted a diagnosis of primary vasculitis in 32 patients (17 small-vessel, 1 medium-vessel, 13 large-vessel and 1 with no predominant size); secondary vasculitis in 2, and other illness in 6. The expert panel agreed with the submitted diagnosis of primary vasculitis in 97% of the cases (definite 54%, probable 35% and possible 8%). However, only 78% of the submitted patients with primary vasculitis were classified as having the same sub-type of vasculitis when compared with the expert panel diagnosis (9% could not be sub-typed within the correct major class of vasculitis, 9% classified the cases with another sub-type of the same major class, 3% chose another major class or diagnosis and 2% selected the unknown option). There was an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.82 (confidence interval 0.57-0.95) in the 10 CVs assessed by the 6 experts, indicating low variability between evaluators.

Conclusion:

An expert panel agreed with the individual submitting physician regarding a diagnosis of some form of primary vasculitis in nearly all cases, but disagreement about the exact form of vasculitis occurred in 22% of cases. Physician-based opinion may be more reliable for defining general categories of vasculitis than for defining specific subtypes.  This exercise highlights the potential for diagnostic bias when using physician-opinion to define the gold standard diagnosis.


Disclosure:

C. Ponte,
None;

A. Craven,
None;

J. Robson,
None;

P. C. Grayson,
None;

R. Suppiah,
None;

R. A. Watts,
None;

P. A. Merkel,
None;

R. A. Luqmani,
None.

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/review-of-the-expert-panel-methodology-in-the-diagnostic-and-classification-criteria-for-vasculitis-study-a-pilot-study/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology