ArticleRheumatology (Oxford, England)2024
Self-reported diagnostic confidence predicts diagnostic accuracy in axial spondyloarthritis imaging.
Article in Rheumatology (Oxford, England), 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Standardized reporting of sacroiliac joints in spondyloarthritis on CT: modified Delphi consensus on lesion definitions from the ESSR-Arthritis Subcommittee.European radiology · 2026Article
- Impact of combining magnetic resonance images and radiographs on radiographic grading of sacroiliitis and classification in axial spondyloarthritis: a reliability study.Rheumatology international · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence improves the diagnosis of human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-B27-negative axial spondyloarthritis based on multi-sequence magnetic resonance imaging and clinical features.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- Progressive improvement in time to diagnosis in axial spondyloarthritis through an integrated referral and education system.Rheumatology advances in practice · 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
15 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesReporting diagnostic confidence (DC) in axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) imaging is recommended by the ASAS guidelines. Our aim was to investigate whether self-reported DC predicts diagnostic accuracy in axSpA imaging using X-ray (XR), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).
methodsWe performed a post hoc analysis including 163 patients with low back pain (89 axSpA and 56 non-axSpA). Nine blinded readers with different experience levels [inexperienced (<1 year), semi-experienced (3-8 years) and experienced (>12 years)] scored the sacroiliac joint images for compatibility with axSpA. DC was reported on a scale from 1 (not sure) to 10 (very sure). Mean DC scores and standard deviations were calculated for correct and incorrect responses using XR, CT, MRI, XR+MRI and CT+MRI. Differences in DC were assessed using the Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsDC scores were higher for correct axSpA diagnoses and differed significantly between correct and incorrect responses for all modalities (P < 0.001), with a mean DC of 7.1 ± 2.1 and 6.3 ± 2.1 for XR, 8.3 ± 1.8 and 6.7 ± 2.0 for CT, 8.1 ± 1.9 and 6.2 ± 1.9 for MRI, 8.2 ± 1.8 and 6.7 ± 1.8 for XR+MRI and 8.4 ± 1.8 and 6.8 ± 1.8 for CT+MRI, respectively. This was also the case when looking at the results by experience group, except for XR in the inexperienced group.
conclusionProviding self-reported DC in radiological reports is useful information to predict diagnostic reliability in axSpA imaging.
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.