Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26337175›Full record

SynthesisClinical rheumatology2016

Construct validity of clinical spinal mobility tests in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marcelo P Castro, Simon M Stebbings, Stephan Milosavljevic, Melanie D Bussey

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Spondyloarthritis in Latin America: a difficult-to-diagnose challenge.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Marcelo P CastroSchool of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Otago, 46 Union St West, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. marcelo.peduzzi.castro@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4416-853X
Simon M StebbingsDepartment of Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Stephan MilosavljevicSchool of Physical Therapy, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada.
Melanie D BusseySchool of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Otago, 46 Union St West, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.
University of Otago · NZUniversity of Saskatchewan · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study aimed to determine, using systematic review and meta-analysis, the level of evidence supporting the construct validity of spinal mobility tests for assessing patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Following the guidelines proposed in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, three sets of keywords were used for data searching: (i) ankylosing spondylitis, spondyloarthritis, spondyloarthropathy, spondylarthritis; (ii) accuracy, association, construct, correlation, Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials, OMERACT, truth, validity; (iii) mobility, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index-BASMI, radiography, spinal measures, cervical rotation, Schober (a further 19 keywords were used). Initially, 2558 records were identified, and from these, 21 studies were retained. Fourteen of these studies were considered high level of evidence. Compound indexes of spinal mobility showed mostly substantial to excellent levels of agreement with global structural damage. Individual mobility tests for the cervico-thoracic spine showed only moderate agreements with cervical structural damage, and considering structural damage at the lumbar spine, the original Schober was the only test that presented consistently substantial levels of agreement. Three studies assessed the construct validity of mobility measures for inflammation and low to fair levels of agreement were observed. Two meta-analyses were conducted, with assessment of agreement between BASMI and two radiological indexes of global structural damage. The spinal mobility indexes and the original Schober test show acceptable construct validity for inferring the extent of structural damage when assessing patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Spinal mobility measures do not reflect levels of inflammation at either the sacroiliac joints and/or the spine.

Indexed as

Range of Motion, ArticularHumansLumbar VertebraeMagnetic Resonance ImagingPhysical ExaminationSacroiliac JointSeverity of Illness IndexSpondylitis, AnkylosingAnkylosing spondylitisConstruct validityMeta-analysisSpinal inflammationSpinal mobilitySpondyloarthritisStructural damage

Identifiers

PMID26337175
OpenAlexW1552948150

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.