ArticleRMD open2024
Learning imaging in axial spondyloarthritis: more than just a matter of experience.
Article in RMD open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multi-habitat radiomics on T2-FS MRI for identifying spatial patterns of axial spondyloarthritis-associated bone marrow edema.Clinical rheumatology · 2026Article
- Nationwide study of spondyloarthritis spectrum and disease characteristics in Egypt.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Axial Imaging in Spondyloarthritis.Rheumatic diseases clinics of North America · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveReliable interpretation of imaging findings is essential for the diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and requires a high level of experience. We investigated experience-dependent differences in diagnostic accuracies using X-ray (XR), MRI and CT.
methodsThis post hoc analysis included 163 subjects with low back pain. Eighty-nine patients had axSpA, and 74 patients had other conditions (mechanical, degenerative or non-specific low back pain). Final diagnoses were established by an experienced rheumatologist before the reading sessions. Nine blinded readers (divided into three groups with different levels of experience) scored the XR, CT and MRI of the sacroiliac joints for the presence versus absence of axSpA. Parameters for diagnostic performance were calculated using contingency tables. Differences in diagnostic performance between the reader groups were assessed using the McNemar test. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Fleiss kappa.
resultsDiagnostic performance was highest for the most experienced reader group, except for XR. In the inexperienced and semi-experienced group, diagnostic performance was highest for CT&MRI (78.5% and 85.3%, respectively). In the experienced group, MRI showed the highest performance (85.9%). The greatest difference in diagnostic performance was found for MRI between the inexperienced and experienced group (76.1% vs 85.9%, p=0.001). Inter-rater agreement was best for CT in the experienced group with κ=0.87.
conclusionDifferences exist in the learnability of the imaging modalities for axSpA diagnosis. MRI requires more experience, while CT is more suitable for inexperienced radiologists. However, diagnosis relies on both clinical and imaging information.
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.