Radiographic progression in psoriatic arthritis: head-to-head comparison of the Ratingen score and the Sharp–van der Heijde method
Clicks: 4
ID: 322648
2026
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
4 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #18 of 197 articles by views in Lara D. Veeken
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 197 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Abstract Objectives To compare the psychometric properties (inter-rater reliability, agreement, responsiveness, and measurement error) of the Psoriatic Arthritis Ratingen Score (PARS) and modified Sharp-van der Heijde (SVDH) methods using the Belgian Psoriatic Arthritis (BePas) cohort. Methods Radiographs of hands and feet (baseline T0, follow-ups T1, T2) were independently scored by two blinded readers using SVDH (max 528) and PARS (max 360). Statistical analyses included Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC), Bland-Altman analysis, Standardized Response Mean (SRM), and Smallest Detectable Change (SDC). Results Both methods detected positive mean change, primarily between T0 and T1. Inter-rater reliability for absolute scores was high for both (ICC >0.865; baseline ICC: PARS 0.906, SVDH 0.888). For cumulative change scores (ΔT2–T0), inter-rater reliability was low and very similar for both methods (ICC=0.483 for SVDH and 0.485 for PARS). Both methods showed moderate responsiveness over the cumulative interval (two-reader average SRM: PARS 0.571, SVDH 0.531). For both methods and both readers, mean cumulative change scores were smaller than the corresponding SDC values (PARS: 2.8–3.7% of maximum score; SVDH: 2.8–4.1%), indicating that average progression fell below the threshold of reliable individual-level detection. Bland-Altman analysis showed slightly narrower absolute limits of agreement for PARS in selected comparisons, whereas SVDH showed narrower relative limits after normalization to the maximum possible score. Conclusions SVDH and PARS showed broadly comparable psychometric performance for PsA damage assessment. Both methods were robust for cross-sectional scoring but showed important limitations in reliably detecting cumulative change in this low-progression cohort. Neither method demonstrated clear superiority.
| Reference Key |
openalex_W7171393325
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Myroslava Kulyk, Silvia Scriffignano, Serge Steinfeld, A. Nzeusseu Toukap, Filip Van den Bosch, Rik Joos, Piet Geusens, Rik Lories, Kurt de Vlam, BEPAS Study Investigators, M. Van Den Berghe, Mieke Devinck, Isabel Peene, Qu Jiangang, Silvano Dalli’Armellina, Jan Lenaerts, Michel Malaise, M. Vanden Berghe, Martin Maertens, Filip Van Bruwaene, V. Taelman |
| Journal | Lara D. Veeken |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/rheumatology/keag309
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.