Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyse interrater reliability of four RheuMetric checklist 0-10 visual numerical scales (VNSs) of physician global assessment (DOCGL), inflammation or reversible findings (DOCINF), organ damage or irreversible findings (DOCDAM) and patient distress or findings explained by fibromyalgia, depression or anxiety (DOCDIS). METHODS: A retrospective study was performed of data from a rheumatology fellows' continuity clinic at Rush University. Each rheumatology patient seen in routine care with any diagnosis completed a multidimensional health assessment questionnaire (MDHAQ). Both the rheumatology fellow and attending rheumatologist independently completed RheuMetric estimates at the same visit for DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM, DOCDIS and the proportion of DOCGL explained by each subglobal estimate (totalling 100%). Agreement between the two assessors was compared using paired t-tests, Spearman correlation coefficients, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), Lin's concordance correlation coefficients (LCCCs) and Bland-Altman plots. RESULTS: In 112 patients, mean levels of DOCINF were highest in inflammatory diseases, DOCDAM in osteoarthritis (OA) and DOCDIS in primary fibromyalgia (FM). However, mean DOCDAM was as high as DOCINF in inflammatory diseases. No statistically significant differences were seen between scores from attending rheumatologists and fellows. Agreement within 2/10 ranged from 60% for DOCGL to 71% for DOICINF and DOCDAM. Spearman correlations were 0.49-0.65, ICCs were 0.46-0.63 and LCCCs were 0.46-0.62 between rheumatologist and fellow, indicating moderate agreement; reliability was slightly higher for each subglobal VNS than for DOCGL. CONCLUSION: RheuMetric 0-10 DOCGL, DOCINF, DOCDAM and DOCDIS have moderate interrater reliability and are feasible in routine care to estimate patient status beyond DOCGL for improved management decisions.