ArticlePloS one2022
Development and test-retest reliability of a screening tool for axial spondyloarthritis.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Development and validation of a screening tool for SPondyloArthritis Screening in Sub-Saharan Africa: SpASSS questionnaire.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Pooled it
- A scoping review of triage approaches for the referral of patients with suspected inflammatory arthritis, from primary to rheumatology care.Rheumatology international · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeople with axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA) suffer from lengthy diagnostic delays of ~7 years. The usage of screening tools to identify axSpA patients in primary care can reduce diagnostic delays by facilitating early referral to rheumatologic care. The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of a potential screening tool for patients with axSpA.
methodContent validity was evaluated by soliciting feedback from 7 rheumatologists regarding the relevance and content representativeness of the proposed screening questions. For the test-retest study, participants ≥18 years of age with chronic back pain (≥3 months) without a diagnosis of mechanical or inflammatory back pain (n = 91) were e-recruited through ResearchMatch. Participation included completing identical baseline and follow-up questionnaires ~14 days apart. Weighted quadratic kappa was used to measure test-retest reliability between the two ratings of the ordinal scales. Construct validity was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and items with factor loadings ≥0.6 were extracted. Scale dimensionality and simplified factorial solutions were measured using Kaiser's criteria (Eigenvalue >1). Cronbach's alpha was used to measure internal consistency.
resultsMost participants were women, non-Hispanic white, and had at least some college education, with a mean age of 45 years. On average, the age at onset of back pain was 31 years. Eleven questions yielded test-retest reliabilities ranging from 0.6 to 0.76. Results from EFA extracted two factors relating to: 1) how pain affects daily life functioning and 2) whether pain improves with movement. Internal consistency was high for questions evaluating how pain affects life, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.81. Following assessment for validity and reliability, the questionnaire was revised to create the 6-item screening tool.
conclusionsThe 6-item SpA-SED screening tool designed to identify potential cases of axSpA was found to have good test-retest reliability and high internal consistency.
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.