ArticleClinical rheumatology2022
Early identification of axial spondyloarthritis in a multi-ethnic Asian population.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesTo address the diagnostic delay in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), we have cross-culturally adapted the Hamilton axSpA questionnaire, a self-administered screening questionnaire, in the Singapore population. In this study, we compared the performance of various scoring methods for this questionnaire in detecting axSpA.
methodThe questionnaire was self-administered by eligible subjects. Scoring methods included method A, the original questionnaire scoring, and methods B-E, scoring developed based on the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for inflammatory back pain (IBP) and the referral, classification and both referral and classification of axSpA, respectively. The reference standard was diagnosis by a rheumatologist. Since the ASAS criteria-based scoring methods were mainly based on clinical axSpA features, self-report and rheumatologist-assessment of clinical axSpA features were also compared in subjects with axSpA.
resultsOf 1418 subjects (age: 54 ± 14 years, female: 73%) recruited, 46 were diagnosed with axSpA by a rheumatologist. Sensitivities of methods A-E were 35%, 61%, 63%, 48% and 83%, respectively. Self-report of clinical axSpA features exceeded rheumatologist-assessment for arthritis (83 vs 26%), good response to NSAIDs (37 vs 30%), enthesitis (35 vs 30%), dactylitis (20 vs 2%) and family history for axSpA (13 vs 4%). The reverse was true for IBP (41 vs 63%) and uveitis (4 vs 15%).
conclusionsA self-administered questionnaire using the ASAS referral and classification criteria-based scoring yielded relatively high sensitivity in detecting axSpA in subjects newly referred to rheumatology clinics. This supports its evaluation as a screening and referral tool in the general population in future studies. Key Points • A self-administered questionnaire could be used as a screening and referral tool. • ASAS referral and classification criteria-based scoring yielded relatively high sensitivity. • Inaccurate perception of clinical axSpA features was observed in axSpA patients.
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.