This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Kim Cusato, MD; Tom Bush, MD
San Jose, Calif

Arch Intern Med. 1993;153(16):1937-1938.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

The conclusions made by Shmerling and Delbanco¹ regarding the utility of rheumatoid factor (RF) in the diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) came as a bit of a surprise, seemingly reversing conventional thinking. Although we can agree, based on their data, that RF is, at times, ordered inappropriately (ie, in the absence of joint complaints), we find it difficult to accept the study's estimates for sensitivity (28%), specificity (87%), and positive predictive value (24%). Kelley et al² quote 70% sensitivity of the RF for RA, and Wolfe et al³ quote 81.6%. We examined the study by Shmerling and Delbanco to locate possible explanations for this discrepancy.

The gold standard for the diagnosis of RA in the study was the use of chart review, applying the American Rheumatism Association's remaining six guidelines (excluding the RF).¹ By this method, they claim to have discovered 10 seronegative RA patients out . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?