Objective: To develop and validate a psoriatic arthritis (PsA) screening questionnaire: the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen (ToPAS).
Methods: The ToPAS was developed through review of items seen in patients with PsA and evaluation by patients with PsA and patients with other rheumatological conditions, and was administered to consecutive consenting patients attending five clinics: PsA, psoriasis, general dermatology, general rheumatology (excluding PsA patients) and family medicine. All patients were assessed by a rheumatologist according to a standard protocol. A three-step analysis strategy was adopted: a stepwise logistic regression to identify the questions most important in discriminating between those with and without PsA; a logistic model was fitted to three clinically relevant domains for PsA: skin, joints and nails; and a simpler weighting of each of the domains used in step 2. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were obtained based on these various models.
Results: In all, there were 134 patients from the PsA clinic, 123 with psoriasis, 118 from dermatology, 135 from rheumatology and 178 from family medicine. A simplified discriminatory score based on the skin, joint and nail domains gave results comparable to other methods with an observed overall sensitivity and specificity, based on a single cut point, of 86.8% and 93.1%. When the patients with PsA were compared with each of the other four patient groups individually, the sensitivity and specificity of the ToPAS were: psoriasis 89.1%, 86.3%; dermatology 91.9%, 95.2%; rheumatology 92.6%, 85.7%; and family medicine 90.4%, 100%.
Conclusion: Our simplified index is very good at classifying those who are not diagnosed with PsA and those who are diagnosed with PsA.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Competing interests: None declared.
Funding: The study was supported by the Krembil Foundation. VC is supported by the Canadian Arthritis Network (CAN) and the Arthritis and Autoimmunity Research Centre Foundation (AARCF), Canada. VTF and BDMT were supported by MRC (UK) funding (U.1052.00.009).
Ethics approval: The study was approved by the Ethics Boards of the University Health Network and Sunnybrook Women’s College Health Sciences Centre.
▸ Additional data (appendix) are published online only at http://ard.bmj.com/content/vol68/issue4
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.