Percentage of progressors in imaging

Can we ignore regressors?

Alexandre Sepriano, Sofia Ramiro, Robert Landewé, Maxime Dougados, Desirée Van Der Heijde

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

1 Citation (Scopus)
3 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Stopping or preventing structural progression is a goal common to all inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Imaging may capture structural progression across diseases, but is susceptible to measurement error. Progression can be analysed as a continuous change score over time (eg, mean change of the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) or as a binary change score (eg, percentage of progressors according to the modified New York criteria). Here, we argue that the former takes measurement error into account while the latter ignores it, which may lead to spurious conclusions. We will argue that assumptions underlying commonly used binary definitions of progression are false and we propose a method that incorporates (inevitable) measurement error.

Original languageEnglish
Article numbere000848
JournalRMD Open
Volume5
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2019

Fingerprint

Rheumatic Diseases
Disease Progression

Keywords

  • axial spondyloarthritis
  • imaging
  • Rheumatoid Arthritis
  • statistics

Cite this

Sepriano, Alexandre ; Ramiro, Sofia ; Landewé, Robert ; Dougados, Maxime ; Van Der Heijde, Desirée. / Percentage of progressors in imaging : Can we ignore regressors?. In: RMD Open. 2019 ; Vol. 5, No. 1.
@article{90045066a4984e38a6e87561218979ad,
title = "Percentage of progressors in imaging: Can we ignore regressors?",
abstract = "Stopping or preventing structural progression is a goal common to all inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Imaging may capture structural progression across diseases, but is susceptible to measurement error. Progression can be analysed as a continuous change score over time (eg, mean change of the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) or as a binary change score (eg, percentage of progressors according to the modified New York criteria). Here, we argue that the former takes measurement error into account while the latter ignores it, which may lead to spurious conclusions. We will argue that assumptions underlying commonly used binary definitions of progression are false and we propose a method that incorporates (inevitable) measurement error.",
keywords = "axial spondyloarthritis, imaging, Rheumatoid Arthritis, statistics",
author = "Alexandre Sepriano and Sofia Ramiro and Robert Landew{\'e} and Maxime Dougados and {Van Der Heijde}, Desir{\'e}e",
year = "2019",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000848",
language = "English",
volume = "5",
journal = "RMD Open",
issn = "2044-6055",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group: BMJ",
number = "1",

}

Percentage of progressors in imaging : Can we ignore regressors? / Sepriano, Alexandre; Ramiro, Sofia; Landewé, Robert; Dougados, Maxime; Van Der Heijde, Desirée.

In: RMD Open, Vol. 5, No. 1, e000848, 01.02.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Percentage of progressors in imaging

T2 - Can we ignore regressors?

AU - Sepriano, Alexandre

AU - Ramiro, Sofia

AU - Landewé, Robert

AU - Dougados, Maxime

AU - Van Der Heijde, Desirée

PY - 2019/2/1

Y1 - 2019/2/1

N2 - Stopping or preventing structural progression is a goal common to all inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Imaging may capture structural progression across diseases, but is susceptible to measurement error. Progression can be analysed as a continuous change score over time (eg, mean change of the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) or as a binary change score (eg, percentage of progressors according to the modified New York criteria). Here, we argue that the former takes measurement error into account while the latter ignores it, which may lead to spurious conclusions. We will argue that assumptions underlying commonly used binary definitions of progression are false and we propose a method that incorporates (inevitable) measurement error.

AB - Stopping or preventing structural progression is a goal common to all inflammatory rheumatic diseases. Imaging may capture structural progression across diseases, but is susceptible to measurement error. Progression can be analysed as a continuous change score over time (eg, mean change of the van der Heijde-modified Sharp score) or as a binary change score (eg, percentage of progressors according to the modified New York criteria). Here, we argue that the former takes measurement error into account while the latter ignores it, which may lead to spurious conclusions. We will argue that assumptions underlying commonly used binary definitions of progression are false and we propose a method that incorporates (inevitable) measurement error.

KW - axial spondyloarthritis

KW - imaging

KW - Rheumatoid Arthritis

KW - statistics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062210833&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000848

DO - 10.1136/rmdopen-2018-000848

M3 - Review article

VL - 5

JO - RMD Open

JF - RMD Open

SN - 2044-6055

IS - 1

M1 - e000848

ER -