ReviewCurrent rheumatology reports2015
Looking into the new ASAS classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis through the other side of the glass.
Review in Current rheumatology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Axial spondyloarthritis: concept, construct, classification and implications for therapy.Nature reviews. Rheumatology · 2021Review
- Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Better Name for an Old Disease: A Step Toward Uniform Reporting.ACR open rheumatology · 2019Article
- Non-Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis (nr-axSpA): Advances in Classification, Imaging and Therapy.Rheumatology and therapy · 2019Review
- Radiologic approach to axial spondyloarthritis: where are we now and where are we heading?Rheumatology international · 2018Review
- Classification Terminology and Definitions in Reporting of MRI in Axial Spondyloarthritis.Journal of the Belgian Society of Radiology · 2017Article
- Progress of genome-wide association studies of ankylosing spondylitis.Clinical & translational immunology · 2017Review
- Therapies of Early, Advanced, and Late Onset Forms of Axial Spondyloarthritis, and the Need for Treat to Target Strategies.Current rheumatology reports · 2017Review
- Progression of Nonradiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis to Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Population-Based Cohort Study.Arthritis & rheumatology (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2016Article
- ASAS classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis: time to modify.Clinical rheumatology · 2016Review
- The ASAS Criteria for Axial Spondyloarthritis: Strengths, Weaknesses, and Proposals for a Way Forward.Current rheumatology reports · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The new concept of axial spondylitis (axSpA) and the Assessment of Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) classification criteria for axSpA have induced new clinical research that has broadened our understanding of spondyloarthritis (SpA) and has had indeed a positive impact on earlier diagnosis and treatment of patients with axSpA who have not yet developed radiographic sacroiliitis. The primary goal of any valid classification criteria for any disease is to provide a homogeneous study population with a common etiopathogenesis, similar prognosis, and similar response to identical treatment. Without such a homogeneous study population, robust clinical and basic science research in any subtype of SpA is not possible. All criteria are dynamic concepts that need updating as our knowledge advances and our review of the ASAS classification criteria of axSpA indicates that complex multi-selection design and unclear (not mutually exclusive) definitions of the imaging and clinical arms of the criteria results in patient heterogeneity across study populations. Therefore, there is a need to improve the validity of the ASAS criteria for axSpA. It is our opinion that in the meantime, the clinically well-established entity of AS, as defined by the modified New York (mNY) criteria, should be preserved for the most accurate comparison of the new research studies with those conducted over the last three decades, and that the use of the ASAS criteria should be restricted to patients with nr-axSpA, who are not recognized by the mNY criteria.
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.