First of all, my compliments for a great process so far. Very clear, understandable, and reasonable.
This question pertains to the extent to which the domain is attributed to the disease. In the definitions this attribution is variable. I'm happy with any choice the group makes, but I think it would help the instrument phase if the attribution (or the lack of it) were made more explicit. My hunch is that in CPPD it makes sense to define target joints and do the assessments in those, not in the least because OA is such a concurrent condition.
Pain intensity: 'pain due to CPPD disease' but it doesn't say 'joint' even though that is added in the explanation.
Joint tenderness: ‘the affected joints’ I assume 'by the disease'?
Joint swelling: ‘joints affected by effusion or synovitis’ which suggests assessing all joints
Joint damage: no mention of affected joint, so again assessment of many joints, just a few, or only one?
Thanks for your supportive comments. Re attribution of symptoms, in general, these have been defined as ‘due to CPPD” or ‘affected joint’ in the definitions, and in the case of acute CPP crystal arthritis domains, tenderness and swelling of ‘the index joint’. It can be challenging to differentiate between symptoms due to CPPD and osteoarthritis, and in general, we have tried to make the outcomes specific to CPPD. We agree that this will need to be reviewed in detail as part of the instrument development, and we’ll put this on the agenda for this next step.
