ReviewDer Internist2013
[What is ascertained in the therapy of axial spondyloarthritis?].
Review in Der Internist, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedBaraliakos, X [added]; Heldmann, F [added]; Kiltz, U [added]
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new term axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) includes classic ankylosing spondylitis and non-radiographic (nr-) axSpA. The definition was introduced in 2009 as part of the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA, where-apart from chronic back pain starting before the age of 45 years and the presence of HLA-B27-magnetic resonance imaging demonstrated bone marrow edema of the sacroiliac joints (osteomyelitis) or structural changes on x-rays may play an important role. These criteria can also be used for diagnosis. A major advantage of the new criteria is the identification of patients in early disease stages. In addition to physical therapy, drug treatment with steroidal anti-inflammatory agents (NSAIDs), corticosteroid injections, and biologics [blocker of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)] have all been shown to be effective, while conventional disease modifying drugs (DMARDs) such as sulfasalazine and methotrexate seem to work mainly for peripheral arthritis but not for enthesitis. Biologics are indicated when NSAIDs in optimal dosage have failed. Both these drugs have the potential to improve pain, stiffness, and function but they may also have an influence on new bone formation (syndesmophytes). NSAIDs need to be given continuously and biologics for longer periods of time. Patients with elevated C-reactive protein levels benefit most when treated consequently.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.