Evidence, grade of recommendation, agreement and votes for each of the recommendations (as pertinent)
| Item | Category of evidence | Grade of recommendation | Level of agreement | Percentage of votes at last ballot* |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1b | A | 9.53±0.80 | 100 |
| 2 | 2c | B | 9.50±0.69 | 100 |
| 3 | 1b, 4† | A, D | 9.68±0.57 | 97 |
| 4 | 1b, 4V‡ | A, D | 9.26±1.13 | 97 |
| 5 | 4 | D | 9.18±1.09 | 67 |
| 6 | 1b, 4§ | A, D | 9.21±1.09 | 94 |
| 7 | 4 | D | 9.47±1.06 | 67 |
| 8 | 1b, 4¶ | A, D | 9.08±1.08 | 67 |
| 9 | 2c | B | 9.61±0.75 | 67 |
| 10 | 4 | D | 9.73±0.77 | 67 |
*Most items required just one ballot and none underwent more than two votings.
†1b for the evidence that low-disease activity is a good treatment target, but 4 because it is expert opinion that it is an alternative goal for remission.
‡1b for the evidence that the use of composite measures is important compared with routine care, but no large study has compared measures that included joint counts with some that did not; therefore 4 for the joint count part.
§1b for the necessity to use composite measures, 4 for some of the time components mentioned.
¶1b for regular adjustment that was mostly done every three months, but 4 for the timelines mentioned, since no comparisons between adjustments at different time points were done.