ReviewArthritis care & research2026
The Lupus Damage Index Revision Program: Results From the Item Generation and Reduction Phases.
Review in Arthritis care & research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveA data-driven and expert/patient consensus-based project to develop a revised Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics (SLICC)/American College of Rheumatology (ACR) Damage Index (SDI) is under way supported by SLICC, ACR, and the Lupus Foundation of America. Our objective is to report the item generation and reduction phase results for a revised SDI.
methodsItem generation included a literature review by literature review groups and a Delphi exercise of international systemic lupus erythematosus experts and patients. Item reduction involved Delphi rounds in which items with a median appropriateness score of ≤4 of 9 were excluded. A 14-member item reduction committee assessed remaining items and removed those that did not reflect the damage construct, were rare, or were not feasible to assess. The clinical domain groups then refined the remaining items and their definitions.
resultsThe Delphi panel included 146 individuals from 35 countries. The Delphi exercise nominated 2,256 items, and the literature review identified 117 items. After removing redundancies, 226 candidate items remained. Subsequent Delphi rounds, followed by review by the item reduction committee and clinical domain groups, resulted in 39 items across 13 domains. Eleven items from the original SDI, including proteinuria and cranial neuropathy, were removed and several new items were proposed, including growth failure/reduced final height and adrenal insufficiency. Severity-based subitems are proposed for 17 items (43.6%).
conclusionThis data-driven and expert/patient consensus-based process has proposed 39 candidate items, some with subitems, and definitions for a revised SDI. Weighting of items and subitems is underway to develop a clinical scoring system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.