Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Objectives: To gather the perspectives of APS ACTION members regarding the strengths and limitations of Damage Index for Antiphospholipid Syndrome (DIAPS); and establish recommendations for the improvement of DIAPS.
Methods: APS ACTION members were invited to answer a survey regarding their satisfaction with DIAPS scoring system and individual items. The level of agreement (LoA) among members with the inclusion of individual items in DIAPS was calculated (LoA of <75% was considered disagreement). Respondents' open-ended comments about DIAPS limitations were also collected, which helped formulate our recommendations for DIAPS improvement.
Results: Forty-two APS ACTION members (58.3%) answered the survey. Of them, 26 (61.9%) were satisfied, 4 (9.5%) were neutral, and 12 (28.6%) were dissatisfied with the current DIAPS scoring system. Fifteen items (39.5%) presented a LoA <75% regarding the inclusion in DIAPS. Respondents provided comments that were grouped under six main categories related to concerns about: a) definitions and attribution of damage (including causality and temporal relationship); b) scoring system; c) overlapping items; d) specific items (exclusion of redundant items and inclusion of additional ones); e) the need to incorporate multiple events; and f) feasibility and practicality. Finally, the APS ACTION "Damage" Working Group developed 7 recommendations that should be considered for the next generation DIAPS.
Conclusion: Approximately 60% of respondents were satisfied with DIAPS and its definitions; however, our survey demonstrated that there is substantial room to improve the current damage index for APS. Efforts for updating DIAPS should consider the APS ACTION "Damage" Working Group recommendations.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.semarthrit.2024.152605 | DOI Listing |