- Main
Identifying Potential Classification Criteria for Calcium Pyrophosphate Deposition Disease: Item Generation and Item Reduction
- Tedeschi, Sara K;
- Pascart, Tristan;
- Latourte, Augustin;
- Godsave, Cattleya;
- Kundakci, Burak;
- Naden, Raymond P;
- Taylor, William J;
- Dalbeth, Nicola;
- Neogi, Tuhina;
- Perez‐Ruiz, Fernando;
- Rosenthal, Ann;
- Becce, Fabio;
- Pascual, Eliseo;
- Andres, Mariano;
- Bardin, Thomas;
- Doherty, Michael;
- Ea, Hang‐Korng;
- Filippou, Georgios;
- FitzGerald, John;
- Guitierrez, Marwin;
- Iagnocco, Annamaria;
- Jansen, Tim L;
- Kohler, Minna J;
- Lioté, Frédéric;
- Matza, Mark;
- McCarthy, Geraldine M;
- Ramonda, Roberta;
- Reginato, Anthony M;
- Richette, Pascal;
- Singh, Jasvinder A;
- Sivera, Francisca;
- So, Alexander;
- Stamp, Lisa K;
- Yinh, Janeth;
- Yokose, Chio;
- Terkeltaub, Robert;
- Choi, Hyon;
- Abhishek, Abhishek
Published Web Location
https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.24619Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Classification criteria for calcium pyrophosphate deposition (CPPD) disease will facilitate clinical research on this common crystalline arthritis. Our objective was to report on the first 2 phases of a 4-phase process for developing CPPD classification criteria. METHODS: CPPD classification criteria development is overseen by a 12-member steering committee. Item generation (phase I) included a scoping literature review of 5 literature databases and contributions from a 35-member combined expert committee and 2 patient research partners. Item reduction and refinement (phase II) involved a combined expert committee meeting, discussions among clinical, imaging, and laboratory advisory groups, and an item-rating exercise to assess the influence of individual items toward classification. The steering committee reviewed the modal rating score for each item (range -3 [strongly pushes away from CPPD] to +3 [strongly pushes toward CPPD]) to determine items to retain for future phases of criteria development. RESULTS: Item generation yielded 420 items (312 from the literature, 108 from experts/patients). The advisory groups eliminated items that they agreed were unlikely to distinguish between CPPD and other forms of arthritis, yielding 127 items for the item-rating exercise. Fifty-six items, most of which had a modal rating of +/- 2 or 3, were retained for future phases. As numerous imaging items were rated +3, the steering committee recommended focusing on imaging of the knee and wrist and 1 additional affected joint for calcification suggestive of CPP crystal deposition. CONCLUSION: A data- and expert-driven process is underway to develop CPPD classification criteria. Candidate items comprise clinical, imaging, and laboratory features.
Many UC-authored scholarly publications are freely available on this site because of the UC's open access policies. Let us know how this access is important for you.