You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Determination of the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) of the physician global assessment (PGA) in SLE
  1. Erik W Anderson,
  2. Meggan Mackay,
  3. Giovanni Franchin,
  4. Cynthia Aranow
  1. The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Cynthia Aranow, The Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, Manhasset, New York, USA; caranow{at}northwell.edu

https://doi.org/10.1136/annrheumdis-2022-222350

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    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.

    Accurate and reliable measurement of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) disease activity is critical for clinical and translational research. The Physician Global Assessment (PGA) is a well-accepted instrument that measures SLE disease activity. It is an anchored, visual analog scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 3 capturing the physician’s overall impression of a patient’s disease activity. Importantly, it is feasible, valid and sensitive to change.1 The PGA is used in SLE clinical trials and observational cohort studies, supplementing other disease activity indices such as the SLE disease activity index (SLEDAI) and British Isles Lupus Assessment Group (BILAG). It is incorporated into responder indices (the SLE Responder Index (SRI) and BILAG-Based Composite Lupus Assessment (BICLA)), and is also part of the SELENA-SLEDAI Flare Index.2 3 Additionally, the PGA is a component of the Lupus Low Disease Activity State (LLDAS) and the Definition of Remission in SLE (DORIS).4 5 As neither a BICLA …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Handling editor Josef S Smolen

    • Twitter @erikanderson_md

    • Contributors EWA, MM, GF and CA contributed to the design and/or implementation of the research and/or to the analysis of the results and to the writing and approval of the manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.