Table 1

Synthesis of results for studies that estimate the correlation between radiographic damage at baseline and HAQ at the end of follow-up (type A comparison)

Citation	Variables correlated	Type of statistical analysis	No of patients for correlation (% baseline)	Correlation score (year)	p Value	Adjustments for confounders
Univariate analysis
Capell 199141§	Modified Sharp – Lee functional index	Spearman's correlation	58 (47.1%)	0.352 (10 years)	0.008^*	No
Van Zeben 199350^‡	Erosion score JSN	Spearman's correlation	132 (100%)	Not reported	>0.1	No
Mottonen 199855^†	Larsen	Spearman's correlation	130 (91.5%)	0.01 (6 years)	>0.05	No
Jansen 200058^†	Presence of erosion	Pearson's correlation	111 (83.4%)	−0.17 (1 year)	>0.05	No
Combe 200363^†	Sharp/vdH	Spearman's correlation	156 (81.6%)	0.167 (5 years)	0.04^*	No
Combe 200363^†	Erosion score	Spearman's correlation	156 (81.6%)	0.186 (5 years)	0.03^*	No
Jansen 200365^†	Sharp/vdH	Student's t test or chi-squared test	282 (77.9%)	Not relevant	<0.05^*	No
Tengstrand 200468^†	Larsen	Spearman's correlation	329 (39.0%)	Not reported	>0.05	No
Zheng 200673^†	MRI erosion score	Spearman's correlation	28 (66.6%)	Not reported	0.01 (MRI tendon)^*	No
Zheng 200673^†	Sharp – Hand and tendon function	Spearman's correlation	28 (66.6%)	Not reported	>0.2 (Sharp)	No
Multivariate analysis
van der Heijde 199246^†	Sharp/vdH	Discriminant analysis	142 (100%)	Not relevant	NS	No
Miyagi 199854^†	Steinbrocker's stage – QoL	Factor analysis	45 (60.8%)	Not relevant	Sig^*	No
Uhlig 200059^‡	Modified Sharp	Bivariate regression	149 (62.6%)	Not relevant	0.01^*	Yes (linear)
Uhlig 200059^‡	Modified Sharp	Linear regression	149 (62.6%)	Not relevant	>0.05	Yes (linear)
Landewe 200261^†	Sharp/vdH	Generalized estimating equations	148 (94.9%)	Not relevant	0.684	No
Berglin 200362^†	Modified Larsen	Spearman's correlation	43 (100%)	0.385 (2 years)	<0.05^*	Yes
Berglin 200362^†	Modified Larsen	Multivariate analysis	43 (100%)	Not relevant	<0.05^*	Yes
Benton 200466^†	MRI modified Sharp	Spearman's correlation	34 (81.0%)	Not reported	0.01^*	No
Benton 200466^†	MRI modified Sharp	Logistic regression model	34 (81.0%)	Not reported	0.5	No
Breedveld 200538^¶	Sharp/vdH	Regression model using stepwise model selection	428 (100%)	Not relevant	<0.001^*	No
Aletaha 200637^§	Sharp and Sharp/vdH	ANOVA testing for linear trend	270 (91.5%)	Not relevant	<0.001^*	Yes
Aletaha 200637^§	Sharp and Sharp/vdH	Linear regression model	270 (91.5%)	Not relevant	<0.001^*	Yes
Bansback 200669^‡	Larsen	Multivariate logistic regression	705 (71.6%)	Not relevant	0.2	No
Welsing 200660^†	Modified Sharp	Mixed linear regression model	185 (100%)	Not relevant	<0.001^*	Yes
van der Heijde 200875^¶	Sharp/vdH	Generalised mixed linear model	622 (90.7%)	Not relevant	<0.001^*	Yes

In the column named ‘variables correlated’ the measure of damage is always reported while the measure of disability is reported only when different from HAQ (in italics).
In the column named ‘correlation score’ the year in brackets represents the end of follow-up (when disability was measured and correlated to baseline damage).
↵* Statistically significant correlation at p<0.05 or when the authors stated that the association was significant (sig) but did not provide a p value;
↵† <1 year disease duration;
↵‡1 –3 years disease duration;
↵§ 3–6 years disease duration;
↵¶ >6 years disease duration;
see table 2 for details on disease duration.
ANOVA, analysis of variance; HAQ, health assessment questionnaire; NS, not significant; sig, significant; vdH, van der Heide.