ArticleMusculoskeletal care2026
Interrater Reliability of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Performance Index in Patients With Axial Spondyloarthritis.
Article in Musculoskeletal care, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn recent years, the Ankylosing Spondylitis Performance Index (ASPI) has emerged as a new objective measure of physical function in patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). So far, only the relative interrater reliability of the ASPI test has been reported, but the absolute interrater reliability remains to be investigated.
objectiveThis study investigated the interrater absolute and relative reliability of the ASPI test in patients with axSpA from a [Nordic] country.
methodsPatients with axSpA were recruited from [a Danish] rheumatology outpatient clinic between October and November 2023. The participants performed the ASPI twice with two different raters, with a 15-min pause between tests. Absolute and relative reliability were assessed.
resultsFifty-two participants were included. The standard error measurement for the overall ASPI test was 3.4%, and the minimal detectable difference was 9.5%. The participants performed the ASPI test faster with the second rater (mean 38.15 s (standard deviation, SD 12.16 s) compared to the first rater (40.92 s (SD 12.07 s)) with a statistically significant reduction in time of -2.77 s (SD 4.53 s) (p < 0.001). The intraclass correlation coefficient of the ASPI test was 0.91 (95% CI 0.76-0.96).
conclusionThe study showed high absolute interrater reliability with low interrater measurement error for single individuals and groups in patients with axSpA. The relative reliability was also high. However, ASPI demonstrated a learning effect at group level. This study offers clinically relevant guidance for interpreting differences in the ASPI scores when tests are repeated by different raters, relevant for real-world clinical practice.
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.