ArticleClinical rheumatology2022
Development of a screening tool to identify patients with axial spondyloarthritis: a cognitive interview study.
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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and test-retest reliability of a screening tool for axial spondyloarthritis.PloS one · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo further refine the wording of screening questions and examine their face validity through cognitive interviews with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and chronic mechanical back pain patients.
methodsIn-depth, semi-structured cognitive interviews were conducted with 30 patients (10 axSpA; 20 chronic mechanical back pain patients) to assess the face validity and comprehensibility of the screening questions. The interview protocol focused on 12 questions/domains including participants' feedback/thoughts on the duration of suffering from back pain, age at onset of back pain, pace of back pain development, improvement of pain with movement or rest, nocturnal back pain improving upon awakening, pain in other parts of the body, responsiveness of pain to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) use, history of autoimmune conditions, and domains such as sleep, sitting, and stiffness. The Flesch-Kincaid grade level and Flesch reading ease scores were then analyzed for the revised versions of screening questions.
resultsParticipants preferred questions that allowed them to provide more details regarding the frequency of their symptoms. Questions were refined for clarity and eliminated if participants considered them to be irrelevant (e.g., NSAIDs). Two sample screeners were derived from twelve questions each with an overall reading grade of 7.5 and reading ease of 65.7%.
conclusionsIt is feasible to design a screening tool that is accessible to most (e.g., reading level) and clear to individuals with back pain. An evidence-based approach to demonstrate the validity of the screening tool will be critical for it to be implemented widely into clinical practice. Key Points • Our study developed two sample screeners that are clear to individuals with back pain and accessible to most with an overall Flesch-Kincaid reading grade of 7.5 and Flesch reading ease of 65.7%. • Questions that were considered irrelevant to participants were eliminated such as responsiveness of pain to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID). • It is feasible to design a screening tool that is accessible to most (e.g., reading level) and clear to individuals with back pain.
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.