ArticleRheumatology advances in practice2025
Early diagnosis of axial spondyloarthritis among patients with chronic back pain using a clinical screening tool and referral strategy.
Article in Rheumatology advances in practice, 2025. 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.
- Inflammatory back pain-like symptoms and MRI mimics of sacroiliitis in patients with anatomical variants of the sacroiliac joint: a cross-sectional study.Rheumatology international · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Lack of timely referral of suspected axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) patients to rheumatologists is an important modifiable reason for diagnostic delay of axSpA. We assessed the usefulness of a self-referral strategy using a clinical feature-based screening questionnaire (SQ) (A-tool). Methods: Finding axSpA (FaxSpA) was single-centre prospective study involving patients with chronic back pain (CBP). The A-tool, consisting of a three-question prescreen and eight-question SQ, was distributed to patients via the patient communication portal and university Facebook page. Patients with affirmative responses on all three prescreen questions, and three or more questions on SQ were eligible for study visit. Enrolled patients underwent history, physical examination, labs (CRP and HLA-B27) and imaging studies (X-ray and MRI of the pelvis). The clinician's judgement was considered the gold standard for diagnosing axSpA. Results: Eighty-six of the 100 enrolled patients completed all the study procedures, and 29 (34%) were diagnosed with axSpA. Seven patients had AS, and 22 had non-radiographic axSpA. Sensitivity and specificity of the individual A-tool questions for diagnosing axSpA ranged from 0.03 to 0.86 and 0.14 to 0.96, respectively. Positive likelihood ratios (+LR) of the individual items in the A-tool ranged from 0.84 to 1.34. There was low to moderate agreement between the patient responses on the online A-tool and the corresponding physician-confirmed responses. Conclusion: A tool-based strategy for self-referral of CBP patients is a simple, practical and feasible approach for early diagnosis of axSpA. We need a larger prospective study to validate our findings.
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.