Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18055468›Full record

ArticleAnnals of the rheumatic diseases2008

Dissemination and evaluation of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis: results of a study among 1507 rheumatologists.

L Gossec, M Dougados, C Phillips, M Hammoudeh, K de Vlam, K Pavelka, T Pham, J Braun, J Sieper, I Olivieri and 5 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of the rheumatic diseases, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 46 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Predicting the outcome of ankylosing spondylitis therapy.Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 2011
    Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 11 institutions in 12 countries.

L GossecParis Descartes University, Medicine Faculty, UPRES-EA 4058; APHP, Rheumatology B Department, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France. laure.gossec@cch.aphp.fr
M Dougados
C Phillips
M Hammoudeh
K de Vlam
K Pavelka
T Pham
J Braun
J Sieper
I Olivieri
D van der Heijde
E Collantes
M Stone
T K Kvien
ASAS (ASsessment in AS international working group)
Société Française de Rhumatologie · FRCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEDescartes (Belgium) · BEDiakonhjemmet Hospital · NOHamad Medical Corporation · QAHôpital de la Conception · FRHospital Universitario Reina Sofía · ESInstitute of Rheumatology · CZLeiden University Medical Center · NLOspedale Madonna Delle Grazie · ITUniversity of Bath · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTen ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of ankylosing spondylitis (AS) were published in 2006.

objectives(a) To disseminate and (b) to evaluate conceptual agreement with, and (c) application of, these recommendations as well as (d) potential barriers to the application.

methodsA questionnaire was sent to rheumatologists in 10 countries. It included (a) the text of the recommendations; (b) rheumatologists' demographic variables; (c) two numerical rating scales from 1 to 10 for each recommendation: conceptual agreement with, and application of, the recommendation (10 indicates maximal agreement and maximal application); and (d) a list of potential barriers to the application of the recommendation. Statistical analysis included descriptive and multivariate analyses.

results7206 questionnaires were sent out; 1507 (21%) were returned. Of the 1507 answering rheumatologists, 62% were men, mean (SD) age 49 (9) years, and 34% had an academic position. Conceptual agreement with the recommendations was high (mean (SD) for all recommendations 8.9 (0.9)). Self-reported application was also high (8.2 (1.0)). The difference between agreement and application varied across recommendations and countries. The most pronounced discrepancies were reported for use of anti-tumour necrosis factor drugs in a few countries, with funding as the most commonly reported barrier for application of this recommendation.

conclusionThis large project has helped the dissemination of the ASAS/EULAR recommendations for the management of AS and shows that conceptual agreement with the recommendations is very high. The project also highlights inequalities in access to healthcare for European citizens with AS.

Indexed as

ConsensusPractice Guidelines as TopicRheumatologyAdultEuropeHumansMaleMiddle AgedSpondylitis, Ankylosing

Identifiers

PMID18055468
PMCPMC2565578
OpenAlexW2121108580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.