Interobserver reliability of Masei index validation by a multicenter collaborative group of rheumatologists.

MASEI is the main validated ultrasound score for the evaluation of enthesis. The lack of studies facing the agreement to achieve for the interpretation of the MAdrid Sonographic Enthesis Index (MASEI) among researchers from different centers in multicenter studies is of concern. The aim of this multicenter was to evaluate the interobserver reliability of MASEI. An experienced ultrasonographer-rheumatologist performed ultrasound scans of the areas included in MASEI index in three patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis and Psoriatic Arthritis. Videos were captured. The videos were then evaluated by 24 rheumatologists of the ultrasound working group of the Catalan Society of Rheumatology (EcoCAT). A face-to-face training meeting was held. Ten days after the workshop, the study participants evaluated the videos. A reliability assessment was performed. The ICC for the MASEI scores after the workshop was of 0.97 (95% CI 89-99). Reliability did not vary statistically with examiner experience. Globally, no problems of reliability by structures were seen, and all the ICCs were above 0.90 and improved slightly after the educational program. However, the correlation observed between examiners at plantar aponeursis and triceps tendon was weak. The small variability observed in the results of the index validation in our study, suggests that the MASEI index is reproducible by different observers when those are well trained and show awesome results of the enthesis when examined by ultrasound.

Measuring inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis with a new clinical and ultrasound index: development and initial validation.

With the aim to develop and validate a clinical + ultrasound (US) inflammation score in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) for use in clinical practice, a mixed-method study was conducted. The theoretical development of the index was achieved with qualitative methodology (discussion group and Delphi survey). Subsequently, a cross-sectional study was carried out to analyse issues related to scoring and validation of the new index. RA patients underwent clinical [28 swollen and tender joints count, patient and physician global assessment (PhGA), erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR), C-reactive protein (CRP)], and US assessments [synovitis or tenosynovitis by grey-scale (GS) and power Doppler (PD) of 42 structures]. An index was created based on statistical models and expert interaction. Construct validity was tested by correlation with DAS28, SDAI, CDAI, and PhGA. Reliability was evaluated in a subgroup of patients with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). US assessment, CRP, and swollen joints were the items that passed the prioritization phase (Delphi study). For the cross-sectional study, 281 patients were randomly divided into design (n = 141) and validation samples (n = 140). The combination of US sites chosen (7 bilaterally) detected the maximum proportion of synovitis and PD present. Three scoring methods were tested: semiquantitative (0-3 GS + 0-3 PD), dichotomous (0/1 GS + 0/1 PD), and qualitative (0/1 based on algorithm). All showed strong correlation with activity measures (ρ ≥ 0.60), and reliability (ICC 0.89-0.93). The index with best parameters of validity, feasibility, and reliability was the qualitative. The final index chosen was the sum of swollen joint count, US qualitative score, and CRP. The UltraSound Activity score is a valid and reliable measure of inflammation in RA equal to the sum of 28 SJC, a simplified (0/1) US assessment of 11 structures and CRP. It is necessary further investigation to demonstrate additional value over existing indices.

Functional Status, Quality of Life, and Costs Associated With Fibromyalgia Subgroups: A Latent Profile Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although fibromyalgia syndrome (FM) is considered a heterogeneous condition, there is no generally accepted subgroup typology. We used hierarchical cluster analysis and latent profile analysis to replicate Giesecke's classification in Spanish FM patients. The second aim was to examine whether the subgroups differed in sociodemographic characteristics, functional status, quality of life, and in direct and indirect costs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 160 FM patients completed the following measures for cluster derivation: the Center for Epidemiological Studies-Depression Scale, the Trait Anxiety Inventory, the Pain Catastrophizing Scale, and the Control over Pain subscale. Pain threshold was measured with a sphygmomanometer. In addition, the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire-Revised, the EuroQoL-5D-3L, and the Client Service Receipt Inventory were administered for cluster validation. RESULTS: Two distinct clusters were identified using hierarchical cluster analysis ("hypersensitive" group, 69.8% and "functional" group, 30.2%). In contrast, the latent profile analysis goodness-of-fit indices supported the existence of 3 FM patient profiles: (1) a "functional" profile (28.1%) defined as moderate tenderness, distress, and pain catastrophizing; (2) a "dysfunctional" profile (45.6%) defined by elevated tenderness, distress, and pain catastrophizing; and (3) a "highly dysfunctional and distressed" profile (26.3%) characterized by elevated tenderness and extremely high distress and catastrophizing. We did not find significant differences in sociodemographic characteristics between the 2 clusters or among the 3 profiles. The functional profile was associated with less impairment, greater quality of life, and lower health care costs. DISCUSSION: We identified 3 distinct profiles which accounted for the heterogeneity of FM patients. Our findings might help to design tailored interventions for FM patients.