Notice: Users may be experiencing issues with displaying some pages on stanfordhealthcare.org. We are working closely with our technical teams to resolve the issue as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.
 

Learn about the flu shot, COVID-19 vaccine, and our masking policy »

Stanford Health Care

Multicriteria decision analysis methods with 1000Minds for developing systemic sclerosis classification criteria JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY Johnson, S. R., Naden, R. P., Fransen, J., van den Hoogen, F., Pope, J. E., Baron, M., Tyndall, A., Matucci-Cerinic, M., Denton, C. P., Distler, O., Gabrielli, A., van Laar, J. M., Mayes, M., Steen, V., Seibold, J. R., clements, P., Medsger, T. A., Carreira, P. E., Riemekasten, G., Chung, L., Fessler, B. J., Merkel, P. A., Silver, R., Varga, J., Allanore, Y., Mueller-Ladner, U., Vonk, M. C., Walker, U. A., Cappelli, S., Khanna, D. 2014; 67 (6): 706-714

Abstract

Classification criteria for systemic sclerosis (SSc) are being developed. The objectives were to develop an instrument for collating case data and evaluate its sensibility; use forced-choice methods to reduce and weight criteria; and explore agreement among experts on the probability that cases were classified as SSc.A standardized instrument was tested for sensibility. The instrument was applied to 20 cases covering a range of probabilities that each had SSc. Experts rank ordered cases from highest to lowest probability; reduced and weighted the criteria using forced-choice methods; and reranked the cases. Consistency in rankings was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs).Experts endorsed clarity (83%), comprehensibility (100%), face and content validity (100%). Criteria were weighted (points): finger skin thickening (14-22), fingertip lesions (9-21), friction rubs (21), finger flexion contractures (16), pulmonary fibrosis (14), SSc-related antibodies (15), Raynaud phenomenon (13), calcinosis (12), pulmonary hypertension (11), renal crisis (11), telangiectasia (10), abnormal nailfold capillaries (10), esophageal dilation (7), and puffy fingers (5). The ICC across experts was 0.73 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.58, 0.86] and improved to 0.80 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.90).Using a sensible instrument and forced-choice methods, the number of criteria were reduced by 39% (range, 23-14) and weighted. Our methods reflect the rigors of measurement science and serve as a template for developing classification criteria.

View details for DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.009

View details for Web of Science ID 000335610000015

View details for PubMedID 24721558