Outcome measurements in scleroderma: results from a delphi exercise.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To obtain a consensus on the minimal clinically relevant treatment effect in various scleroderma disease outcome measures to be used in future clinical trials. METHODS: A Delphi consensus building exercise using a survey was sent out to members of the Scleroderma Clinical Trials Consortium (SCTC). The 65 SCTC members were divided into 2 groups. Group 1 was informed, in a cover letter, of the usual American College of Rheumatology 20% response results in randomized trials using effective biologic treatments for rheumatoid arthritis, while Group 2 was not. The first round of the exercise presented the scleroderma experts with a survey composed of 95 questions/clinical scenarios divided into 8 categories. These included situations where the treatment group improved, or worsened, or where some outcome measures improved, while others worsened. From the responses of this first round, a mean, mode, median, and range of responses for each of the 95 questions was obtained. This information was sent out, in the second round of the Delphi exercise, only to those respondents who answered the first round. The respondent's previous answer and the mean and range from the first round were provided for each question. It gave respondents the option to change any of their initial responses. The median of their responses in the second round was used to calculate the values for the minimal clinically relevant treatment effect. RESULTS: Thirty-two of the 65 SCTC members returned the first round of the Delphi exercise. Twenty-eight members returned the second round. Intraclass correlation coefficients between responses to round 1 and 2 were calculated for the questions. These varied from 0.99 (excellent agreement) to 0.02 (poor agreement). The p value was under 0.09 for 9 questions and under 0.19 for 20 questions. Standard deviations (SD) were calculated and were found to be lesser for each of the questions in round 2 when compared to the SD in responses from round 1, thus indicating a movement towards a consensus by the second round. An average of 33% of the responses were changed by the respondents in the second round of the Delphi exercise to a value closer to the median/average of the first round's responses. A range in required values for the minimal clinically relevant treatment effect for Modified Rodnan skin score is 3 to 7.5 units, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI) 0.2 to 0.25 units, HAQ pain 0.2 to 0.3 units, MD global (100 mm visual analog scale) 8 to 13, patient global assessment 10 to 12, and diffusing capacity (percentage predicted) 9 to 10. The scenarios were especially weighted towards overall disease modification, thus organ-specific measures, such as 6 minute walk time (which has been used in many pulmonary artery hypertension trials), forced vital capacity, and a dyspnea rating (which may be important in scleroderma lung trials), were not included in the survey. CONCLUSION: Our study begins to address the current deficiency in our knowledge of appropriate values for the minimal clinically relevant treatment effect in various scleroderma disease outcome measures. A consensus could be achieved, or at least a range of minimal clinically relevant treatment effect values could be found for several outcome measurements. Of course, this consensus statement will be modified by evidence as it accrues in each consensus area.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.186 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".