Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30380111›Full record

SynthesisRheumatology (Oxford, England)2019

Psoriatic arthritis screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Nicolas Iragorri, Glen Hazlewood, Braden Manns, Vishva Danthurebandara, Eldon Spackman

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Psoriatic Arthritis: From Diagnosis to Treatment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Role of Total Body PET/CT in Inflammatory Disorders.Seminars in nuclear medicine · 2025
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. EXPLORing Arthritis with Total-body Positron Emission Tomography.Seminars in musculoskeletal radiology · 2023
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Evaluation of a Genetic Risk Score for Diagnosis of Psoriatic Arthritis.Journal of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis · 2020
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Psoriatic arthritis.F1000Research · 2019
    Review
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

5 authors.

Nicolas IragorriDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary.
Glen HazlewoodDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary.
Braden MannsDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary.
Vishva DanthurebandaraDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary.
Eldon SpackmanDepartment of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary.

Funding

CIHRDepartment of Health RP-PG-1212-20007
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo systematically review the accuracy and characteristics of different questionnaire-based PsA screening tools.

methodsA systematic review of MEDLINE, Excerpta Medical Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science was conducted to identify studies that evaluated the accuracy of self-administered PsA screening tools for patients with psoriasis. A bivariate meta-analysis was used to pool screening tool-specific accuracy estimates (sensitivity and specificity). Heterogeneity of the diagnostic odds ratio was evaluated through meta-regression. All full-text records were assessed for risk of bias with the QUADAS 2 tool.

resultsA total of 2280 references were identified and 130 records were assessed for full-text review, of which 42 were included for synthesis. Of these, 27 were included in quantitative syntheses. Of the records, 37% had an overall low risk of bias. Fourteen different screening tools and 104 separate accuracy estimates were identified. Pooled sensitivity and specificity estimates were calculated for the Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (cut-off = 44), Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation (47), Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening (8), Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (3) and Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire (3). The Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire reported the highest sensitivity and specificity (0.85 each). The I2 for the diagnostic odds ratios varied between 76 and 90.1%. Meta-regressions were conducted, in which the age, risk of bias for patient selection and the screening tool accounted for some of the observed heterogeneity.

conclusionsQuestionnaire-based tools have moderate accuracy to identify PsA among psoriasis patients. The Early Psoriatic Arthritis Screening Questionnaire appears to have slightly better accuracy compared with the Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screening, Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool and Psoriatic Arthritis Screening and Evaluation. An economic evaluation could model the uncertainty and estimate the cost-effectiveness of PsA screening programs that use different tools.

Indexed as

AdultArthritis, PsoriaticEarly DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedOdds RatioPatient SelectionSensitivity and SpecificitySurveys and QuestionnairesEARPPASEPESTpsoriatic arthritisscreeningToPAS

Identifiers

PMID30380111
PMCPMC6434376

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.