Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
International Journal of Rheumatology
Volume 2015, Article ID 834070, 4 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2015/834070
Research Article

Improving the Measurement of Disease Activity for Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis: Validation of an Electronic Version of the Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3

1Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH, USA
2Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH, USA
3Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine, Hanover, NH, USA

Received 10 September 2015; Accepted 21 October 2015

Academic Editor: Malcolm Smith

Copyright © 2015 Ruthie M. Chua et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. L. E. Hart, P. Tugwell, W. W. Buchanan, G. R. Norman, E. M. Grace, and D. Southwell, “Grading of tenderness as a source of interrater error in the Ritchie articular index,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 716–717, 1985. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. I. Castrejón and T. Pincus, “Assessing remission in rheumatoid arthritis on the basis of patient reported outcomes—advantages of using RAPID3/MDHAQ in routine care,” Bulletin of the Hospital for Joint Diseases, vol. 72, no. 2, pp. 136–141, 2014. View at Google Scholar
  3. K. L. Haywood, “Patient-reported outcome I: measuring what matters in musculoskeletal care,” Musculoskeletal Care, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 187–203, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. S. J. Coons, C. J. Gwaltney, R. D. Hays et al., “Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report,” Value in Health, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 419–429, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. C. J. Gwaltney, A. L. Shields, and S. Shiffman, “Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review,” Value in Health, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 322–333, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. T. Pincus, C. J. Swearingen, M. Bergman, and Y. Yazici, “RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3), a rheumatoid arthritis index without formal joint counts for routine care: proposed severity categories compared to disease activity score and clinical disease activity index categories,” Journal of Rheumatology, vol. 35, no. 11, pp. 2136–2147, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. T. Pincus, M. J. Bergman, Y. Yazici, P. Hines, K. Raghupathi, and R. Maclean, “An index of only patient-reported outcome measures, routine assessment of patient index data 3 (RAPID3), in two abatacept clinical trials: similar results to disease activity score (DAS28) and other RAPID indices that include physician-reported measures,” Rheumatology, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 345–349, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. T. Pincus, V. Furer, E. Keystone, Y. Yazici, M. J. Bergman, and K. Luijtens, “RAPID3 (Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data 3) severity categories and response criteria: similar results to DAS28 (Disease Activity Score) and CDAI (Clinical Disease Activity Index) in the RAPID 1 (Rheumatoid Arthritis Prevention of Structural Damage) clinical trial of certolizumab pegol,” Arthritis Care and Research, vol. 63, no. 8, pp. 1142–1149, 2011. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. F. Salaffi, S. Gasparini, and W. Grassi, “The use of computer touch-screen technology for the collection of patient-reported outcome data in rheumatoid arthritis: comparison with standardized paper questionnaires,” Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 459–468, 2009. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. A. S. Wilson, G. D. Kitas, D. M. Carruthers et al., “Computerized information-gathering in specialist rheumatology clinics: an initial evaluation of an electronic version of the Short Form 36,” Rheumatology, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 268–273, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. Y. P. M. Goekoop-Ruiterman, J. K. de Vries-Bouwstra, C. F. Allaart et al., “Clinical and radiographic outcomes of four different treatment strategies in patients with early rheumatoid arthritis (the BeSt study): a randomized, controlled trial,” Arthritis and Rheumatism, vol. 58, no. 2, supplement, pp. S126–S135, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. C. Grigor, H. Capell, A. Stirling et al., “Effect of a treatment strategy of tight control for rheumatoid arthritis (the TICORA study): a single-blind randomised controlled trial,” The Lancet, vol. 364, no. 9430, pp. 263–269, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. T. Pincus and O. G. Segurado, “Most visits of most patients with rheumatoid arthritis to most rheumatologists do not include a formal quantitative joint count,” Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, vol. 65, no. 6, pp. 820–822, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus