The comparative performance of three screening questionnaires for psoriatic arthritis in a primary care surveillance study

Helliwell,Philip S.; Coates,Laura C.; Ransom,Myka; Brown,Sarah T.; Packham,Jonathan; Weddell,Jake; Tillett,William; McHugh,Neil; Group,the PROMPT Study

The comparative performance of three screening questionnaires for psoriatic arthritis in a primary care surveillance study

All Authors

Helliwell,Philip S.

Coates,Laura C.

Ransom,Myka

Brown,Sarah T.

Packham,Jonathan

Weddell,Jake

Tillett,William

McHugh,Neil

Group,the PROMPT Study

LTHT Author

Helliwell, Philip
Weddell, Jake

LTHT Department

NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre
Rheumatology

Publication Date

2024

Item Type

Article

Abstract

Objectives The objective of this study was to compare the performance of three PsA screening questionnaires in a primary care psoriasis surveillance study. Methods Participants with psoriasis, and not known to have PsA, were identified from general practice databases and invited to attend a secondary care centre for a clinical assessment. The three patient-completed screening questionnaires (PEST, CONTEST and CONTESTjt) were administered, along with other patient-reported measures, and a clinical examination of skin and joints was performed. Participants who demonstrated signs of inflammatory arthritis suggestive of PsA were referred, via their GP, for a further assessment in a secondary care rheumatology clinic. Results A total of 791 participants attended the screening visit, and 165 participants were judged to have signs and symptoms of inflammatory arthritis, of which 150 were referred for assessment. Of these, 126 were seen and 48 were diagnosed with PsA. The results for each questionnaire were as follows: PEST: sensitivity 0.625 (95% CI 0.482, 0.749), specificity 0.757 (0.724, 0.787); CONTEST: sensitivity 0.604 (0.461, 0.731), specificity 0.768 (0.736, 0.798); and CONTESTjt: sensitivity 0.542 (0.401, 0.676), specificity 0.834 (0.805, 0.859). CONTESTjt demonstrated marginally superior specificity to PEST, though the area under the ROC curve was similar for all three instruments. Conclusion Minimal differences between the three screening questionnaires were found in this study, and no preferred questionnaire is indicated by these results. The choice of which instrument to choose will depend on other factors, such as simplicity and low patient burden.