ArticleScientific reports2023
Proposal of simplified CT syndesmophyte score (sCTSS) and comparison with CTSS in patients with ankylosing spondylitis.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Advances on the Mechanism and Diagnosis of Bone Bridging in Ankylosing Spondylitis.Orthopedic research and reviews · 2026Review
- Costotransverse joint ankylosis and their association with syndesmophyte progression in patients with radiographic axial spondyloarthritis.Therapeutic advances in musculoskeletal disease · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The CT syndesmophyte score (CTSS) can evaluate spinal progression more precisely than mSASSS in ankylosing spondylitis (AS); however, it is complex and time consuming. Here, we propose a simplified CTSS (sCTSS) for measuring spinal structural changes in AS. Patients with AS were recruited from a single tertiary hospital. Baseline and 2-year follow-up whole spine CT images were used to calculate CTSS and sCTSS. The sCTSS used the anterior and posterior vertebral corners, and ranged 0-184. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were calculated, as well as the smallest detectable changes. Fifty AS patients were included. For reader 1, the mean sCTSS at baseline and 2-year follow-up were 11.7 ± 14.6 and 15.8 ± 16.1, whereas those for reader 2 were 12.0 ± 12.5 and 15.8 ± 15.7, respectively. The ICCs for CTSS at baseline and at 2-year follow-up were 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96-0.99) and 0.98 (0.97-0.99), respectively, and that for changes over the 2 years was 0.48 (95% CI 0.23-0.67). For sCTSS, the ICCs were 0.96 (95% CI 0.92-0.97), 0.97 (95% CI 0.94-0.98), and 0.58 (95% CI 0.36-0.74), respectively. Detection rates for syndesmophyte progression were comparable between CTSS and sCTSS. The detection rate for syndesmophytes on only lateral side was 13.2 and 11.4%, and 11.4 and 15.2% at baseline and 2-year follow-up (reader 1 and 2). sCTSS and CTSS showed similar detection rates for syndesmophyte progression. sCTSS may be a reliable method for evaluating spinal structural damage in AS.
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.