GuidelineFrontiers in immunology2022
A clinical practice guideline for the screening and assessment of enthesitis in patients with spondyloarthritis.
Guideline in Frontiers in immunology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Spondyloarthritis in Latin America: a difficult-to-diagnose challenge.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 2026Review
- Evaluation of remission in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis using an ultrasonography-based enthesitis score: a cross-sectional study.Reumatologia · 2025Article
- The Effect of Therapeutic Exercise and Local Cryotherapy on Lower Limb Enthesitis in Non-Radiographic Axial Spondyloarthritis: A Case Report.Journal of personalized medicine · 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
38 authors at 19 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this review is to provide guidance on the selection of approaches to the screening and assessment of enthesitis in patients with spondyloarthritis (SpA). Methods: Twenty-four questions regarding the approaches to the screening and assessment of enthesitis and the implementation details were devised, followed by a systemic literature review. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology was employed in the development of this guideline, with modifications to evaluate non-interventional approaches under comprehensive consideration of costs, accessibility, and evidence strength. A consensus from the voting panel was required for the inclusion of the final recommendations and the strength of each recommendation. Results: Seventeen recommendations (including five strong recommendations) were included in this guideline. The voting panel expressed unequivocal support for the necessity of screening and assessment of enthesitis in patients with SpA. It was agreed unanimously that symptom evaluation and physical examination should serve as the initial steps to the recognition of enthesitis, whereas Maastricht Ankylosing Spondylitis Enthesitis Score is a reliable tool in both clinical trials and daily medical practice. Ultrasound examination is another reliable tool, with power Doppler ultrasound as an informative addition. Notwithstanding its high resolution, MRI is limited by the costs and relatively low accessibility, whereas radiographs had low sensitivity and therefore should be rendered obsolete in the assessment of enthesitis. PET/CT was strongly opposed in the detection of enthesitis. Conclusion: This guideline provides clinicians with information regarding the screening and assessment of enthesitis in patients with SpA. However, this guideline does not intend on dictating choices, and the ultimate decisions should be made in light of the actual circumstances of the facilities.
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.