Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 3, 2026

Author Spotlight: A Focus on Standardized Salivary Gland Ultrasound Protocol in Connective Tissue Disease Research
Published on: October 13, 2023
Development of the 2023 ACR/EULAR Antiphospholipid Syndrome Classification Criteria, Phase III-D Report:
Medha Barbhaiya1, Stephane Zuily2, Mary-Carmen Amigo3
1Hospital for Special Surgery, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York City, New York.
Objective:
The 2023 American College of Rheumatology/EULAR antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) classification criteria development, which aimed to identify patients with high likelihood of APS for research, employed a four-phase methodology. Phase I and II resulted in 27 proposed candidate criteria, which are organized into laboratory and clinical domains. Here, we summarize the last stage of phase III efforts, employing a consensus-based multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) to weigh candidate criteria and identify an APS classification threshold score.
Methods:
We evaluated 192 unique, international real-world patients referred for "suspected APS" with a wide range of APS manifestations. Using proposed candidate criteria, subcommittee members rank ordered 20 representative patients from highly unlikely to highly likely to have APS. During an in-person meeting, the subcommittee refined definitions and participated in an MCDA exercise to identify relative weights of candidate criteria. Using consensus decisions and pairwise criteria comparisons, 1000Minds software assigned criteria weights, and we rank ordered 192 patients by their additive scores. A consensus-based threshold score for APS classification was set.
Results:
Premeeting evaluation of 20 representative patients demonstrated variability in APS assessment. MCDA resolved 81 pairwise decisions; relative weights identified domain item hierarchy. After assessing 192 patients by weights and additive scores, the Steering Committee reached consensus that APS classification should require separate clinical and laboratory scores, rather than a single-aggregate score, to ensure high specificity.
Conclusion:
Using MCDA, candidate criteria preliminary weights were determined. Unlike other disease classification systems using a single-aggregate threshold score, separate clinical and laboratory domain thresholds were incorporated into the new APS classification criteria.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
Rheumatic Heart Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Studies
Acute Coronary Syndrome III: Diagnostic Studies
Atherosclerosis II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Tests
Atherosclerosis III: Management
Peripheral Arterial Disease II: Clinical Manifestations and Diagnostic Evaluation
Peripheral Artery Disease III: Interprofessional Care

