Bibliographic citations
This is an automatically generated citacion. Modify it if you see fit
Flores, T., (2019). Efectividad de los scores CDAI, SDAI Y RAPID-3 como criterios de remisión de la artritis reumatoide [Tesis, Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego]. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/5191
Flores, T., Efectividad de los scores CDAI, SDAI Y RAPID-3 como criterios de remisión de la artritis reumatoide [Tesis]. PE: Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego; 2019. https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/5191
@misc{renati/1358046,
title = "Efectividad de los scores CDAI, SDAI Y RAPID-3 como criterios de remisión de la artritis reumatoide",
author = "Flores Cecilio, Tania Iveth",
publisher = "Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego",
year = "2019"
}
Title: Efectividad de los scores CDAI, SDAI Y RAPID-3 como criterios de remisión de la artritis reumatoide
Authors(s): Flores Cecilio, Tania Iveth
Advisor(s): Leiva Goicochea, Juan Eduardo
OCDE field: https://purl.org/pe-repo/ocde/ford#3.02.27
Issue Date: 2019
Institution: Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego
Abstract: Objetivo: Determinar si los scores CDAI, SDAI Y RAPID-3 son tan efectivos como
el score DAS-28 en la evaluación de la remisión en pacientes con artritis reumatoide.
Materiales y métodos: Se realizó un estudio observacional, analítico, de corte
transversal y de pruebas diagnósticas, evaluando a 193 pacientes con diagnóstico
de artritis reumatoide atendidos en el servicio de Reumatología del Hospital
Nacional Guillermo Almenara durante el periodo abril – Junio 2019. Se realizó el
cálculo de sensibilidad, especificidad, valor predictivo positivo y negativo, y exactitud
diagnóstica de los scores CDAI, SDAI y RAPID 3.
Resultados: De un total de 193 pacientes incluidos en el estudio, un gran
porcentaje de pacientes fueron femeninos con 90%. El grupo etario más frecuente
fue de 51 a 65 años con un 46%, las comorbilidades más frecuentes en los pacientes
con artritis reumatoide fue osteoporosis (26%) y dislipidemia (25%). El tratamiento
inmunosupresor que más recibieron fue Leflunomida (52%) y en tratamientos
biológicos, Etanercept (7%). La proporción de pacientes con remisión
diagnosticados correctamente con SDAI y CDAI fue 100% y con RAPID 3 fue 97%,
mientras que la proporción de pacientes con actividad diagnosticados
correctamente con CDAI y SDAI fue 41% y 23% con RAPID 3. La probabilidad de
que el paciente con AR tuviera algún grado de actividad si el score así lo demostrara
fue del 100% en SDAI y CDAI y 81% con RAPID 3; y en cuanto al VPN, la
probabilidad de que el paciente con AR se encontrara en remisión si el score lo
demostrara así fue del 80% en SDAI y CDAI, y del 75% con RAPID 3. Se reportó
una buena concordancia entre SDAI/DAS-28 y CDAI/DAS-28 (k: 0.67 y k:0.63
respectivamente, p<0,00) y concordancia pobre entre RAPID-3/DAS-28 (k: 0.20,
p<0,00). Conclusiones: SDAI y CDAI son instrumentos válidos, comparables con DAS-28
y fueron mucho más efectivas que el RAPID-3 en la clasificación de la remisión
respecto al DAS28.
Objective: To determine if the CDAI, SDAI and RAPID-3 scores are as effective as the DAS-28 score in the evaluation of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Materials and methods: An observational, analytical, cross-sectional study and diagnostic tests were carried out, evaluating 193 patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis treated at the Rheumatology Service at Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara during the period April - June 2019. The calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of the CDAI, SDAI and RAPID 3 scores was performed. Results: Of a total of 193 patients included in the study, a large percentage of patients were female with 90%. The most frequent age group was 51 to 65 years with 46%, the most frequent comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis was osteoporosis (26%) and dyslipidemia (25%). The immunosuppressant treatment that received the most was Leflunomide (52%) and in biological treatments, Etanercept (7%). The rate of patients with remission correctly diagnosed with SDAI and CDAI was 100% and with RAPID 3 it was 97%, while the rate of patients with activity correctly diagnosed with CDAI and SDAI was 41% and 23% with RAPID 3. The probability of that the patient with RA had some degree of activity if the score so demonstrated was 100% in SDAI and CDAI and 81% with RAPID 3; and regarding the NPV, the probability that the patient with RA was in remission if the score demonstrated this was 80% in SDAI and CDAI, and 75% with RAPID 3. A good agreement was reported between SDAI / DAS -28 and CDAI / DAS-28 (k: 0.67 and k: 0.63 respectively, p <0.00) and poor concordance between RAPID-3 / DAS-28 (k: 0.20, p <0.00). Conclusions: SDAI and CDAI are valid and comparable instruments with DAS-28 and were much more effective than RAPID-3 in the classification of remission with respect to DAS28.
Objective: To determine if the CDAI, SDAI and RAPID-3 scores are as effective as the DAS-28 score in the evaluation of remission in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Materials and methods: An observational, analytical, cross-sectional study and diagnostic tests were carried out, evaluating 193 patients diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis treated at the Rheumatology Service at Hospital Nacional Guillermo Almenara during the period April - June 2019. The calculation of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and diagnostic accuracy of the CDAI, SDAI and RAPID 3 scores was performed. Results: Of a total of 193 patients included in the study, a large percentage of patients were female with 90%. The most frequent age group was 51 to 65 years with 46%, the most frequent comorbidities in patients with rheumatoid arthritis was osteoporosis (26%) and dyslipidemia (25%). The immunosuppressant treatment that received the most was Leflunomide (52%) and in biological treatments, Etanercept (7%). The rate of patients with remission correctly diagnosed with SDAI and CDAI was 100% and with RAPID 3 it was 97%, while the rate of patients with activity correctly diagnosed with CDAI and SDAI was 41% and 23% with RAPID 3. The probability of that the patient with RA had some degree of activity if the score so demonstrated was 100% in SDAI and CDAI and 81% with RAPID 3; and regarding the NPV, the probability that the patient with RA was in remission if the score demonstrated this was 80% in SDAI and CDAI, and 75% with RAPID 3. A good agreement was reported between SDAI / DAS -28 and CDAI / DAS-28 (k: 0.67 and k: 0.63 respectively, p <0.00) and poor concordance between RAPID-3 / DAS-28 (k: 0.20, p <0.00). Conclusions: SDAI and CDAI are valid and comparable instruments with DAS-28 and were much more effective than RAPID-3 in the classification of remission with respect to DAS28.
Link to repository: https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12759/5191
Discipline: Medicina Humana
Grade or title grantor: Universidad Privada Antenor Orrego. Facultad de Medicina Humana
Grade or title: Médico Cirujano
Register date: 23-Jul-2019
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License