ArticleArchives of rheumatology2022
Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool for the detection of psoriatic arthritis in patients with psoriasis.
Article in Archives of 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Brazilian Portuguese version of the psoriasis epidemiology screening tool (PEST-bp) is reliable and accurate: a cross-sectional study from southern Brazil.Anais brasileiros de dermatologiaArticle
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
Objectives: The Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool (PEST) is a simple and useful questionnaire designed to screen arthritis in patients with psoriasis. This study aims to evaluate the validity and reliability of the PEST questionnaire in Turkish patients with psoriasis. Patients and methods: Between August 2019 and September 2019, a total of 158 adult patients with psoriasis (61 males, 68 females; mean age: 43.1±13.3 years; range, 29.8 to 56.4 years) who were not previously diagnosed with PsA were included. The testing procedure for translation and cultural adaptation was carried out according to the following steps: preparation, forward translation, reconciliation, back-translation/back-translation review, harmonization, finalization, and proofreading. Patients' demographic parameters, comorbidities, PEST, and Toronto Psoriatic Arthritis Screen (ToPAS 2) results were recorded. The patients were, then, assessed by a rheumatologist who was blinded to their PEST scores. The diagnosis of PsA was made according to the Classification criteria for Psoriatic Arthritis (CASPAR). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) was assessed to obtain the sensitivity and specificity of the PEST questionnaire. Results: Of the patients, 42 had PsA, while 87 did not. Each parameter of PEST showed a low-high internal consistency ranging from 0.366 to 0.781. When the Question 3 was excluded, Cronbach alpha value increased to 0.866. The Cronbach alpha value of the whole scale was 0.829. The test-retest reliability of the Turkish version of PEST was determined as 0.86 for the total score (ICC=0.866 95% CI: 0.601-0.955; p<0.0001). There was a strong positive correlation between PEST and ToPAS 2 (r=0.763; p<0.001) and a moderate positive correlation between PEST and CASPAR (r=0.455; p<0.001). A cut-off value of ≥3 yielded a sensitivity of 93% and a specificity of 89% for the diagnosis of PsA with the highest Youden's index. The PEST scale was found to have a higher sensitivity, but lower specificity in the head-to-head comparison with ToPAS 2. Conclusion: The Turkish version of PEST is a reliable and valid tool for screening PsA in Turkish patients with psoriasis.
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.