Numerical scoring for the Classic BILAG index.
Numerical scoring for the Classic BILAG index.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/rheumatology/kep183
复制
发表时间：
2009-12
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Gordon C
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cresswell L;Yee CS;Farewell V;Rahman A;Teh LS;Griffiths B;Bruce IN;Ahmad Y;Prabu A;Akil M;McHugh N;Toescu V;D'Cruz D;Khamashta MA;Maddison P;Isenberg DA;Gordon C
目标。开发经典BILAG指数的加法数值计分方案。方法：研究方法。系统性红斑狼疮患者被纳入这项多中心横断面研究。在每一次评估中，都收集了关于疾病活动和治疗的数据。通过八个系统的经典BILAG评分，Logistic回归被用来模拟治疗的增加，作为活动期疾病的指标。由于两者都表示不活动，D和E的得分被设置为0，并在拟合的模型中用作基线。然后利用受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线对不同的评分方案进行比较。使用来自单一中心的评估进行验证分析。结果。来自369名SLE患者的1510项评估。当前使用的编码方案(A=9、B=3、C=1和D/E=0)不能很好地符合数据。回归模型提出了三种可能的数值评分方案：(I)A=11，B=6，C=1和D/E=0；(Ii)A=12，B=6，C=1和D/E=0；(Iii)A=11，B=7，C=1和D/E=0。这些方案产生了可比较的ROC曲线。据此，A=12，B=6，C=1，D/E=0似乎是一个合理而实用的选择。验证分析表明，虽然A=12，B=6，C=1和D/E=0的编码仍然是合理的，但对B的权重略低的方案，如A=12，B=5，C=1和D/E=0，可能更合适。结论。根据经典BILAG指数的治疗决策，合理的加法数值计分方案为A=12，B=5，C=1，D=0和E=0。
Objective. To develop an additive numerical scoring scheme for the Classic BILAG index. Methods. SLE patients were recruited into this multi-centre cross-sectional study. At every assessment, data were collected on disease activity and therapy. Logistic regression was used to model an increase in therapy, as an indicator of active disease, by the Classic BILAG score in eight systems. As both indicate inactivity, scores of D and E were set to 0 and used as the baseline in the fitted model. The coefficients from the fitted model were used to determine the numerical values for Grades A, B and C. Different scoring schemes were then compared using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. Validation analysis was performed using assessments from a single centre. Results. There were 1510 assessments from 369 SLE patients. The currently used coding scheme (A = 9, B = 3, C = 1 and D/E = 0) did not fit the data well. The regression model suggested three possible numerical scoring schemes: (i) A = 11, B = 6, C = 1 and D/E = 0; (ii) A = 12, B = 6, C = 1 and D/E = 0; and (iii) A = 11, B = 7, C = 1 and D/E = 0. These schemes produced comparable ROC curves. Based on this, A = 12, B = 6, C = 1 and D/E = 0 seemed a reasonable and practical choice. The validation analysis suggested that although the A = 12, B = 6, C = 1 and D/E = 0 coding is still reasonable, a scheme with slightly less weighting for B, such as A = 12, B = 5, C = 1 and D/E = 0, may be more appropriate. Conclusions. A reasonable additive numerical scoring scheme based on treatment decision for the Classic BILAG index is A = 12, B = 5, C = 1, D = 0 and E = 0.
影响因子：
--
作者：
Yee, Chee-Seng;Farewell, Vernon;Gordon, Caroline
通讯作者：
Gordon, Caroline
影响因子：
--
作者：
Brunner, HI;Feldman, BM;Silverman, ED
通讯作者：
Silverman, ED