ArticleClinical rheumatology2026
Challenges in diagnosing and monitoring radiographic and non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis in daily clinical practice.
Article in Clinical rheumatology, 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.
- Article
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
INTRODUCTION/
objectivesAxial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) is a heterogeneous disease with variable clinical features changing over the disease course, making diagnosis and monitoring challenging. Large progress has been made in classification development, imaging, disease-activity assessment. However, there is limited insight in how these developments are addressed in daily clinical practice. Therefore, our study aim was to gain better insight into diagnosis, monitoring and treatment and to explore if non-radiographic (nr-)axSpA is addressed differently from radiographic (r-)axSpA.
methodsA multiple-choice survey on diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment of axSpA was conducted in semi-structured, face-to-face interviews with 51 Dutch rheumatologists, representing a range of geographical locations, hospital types, and axSpA expertise.
resultsOf all participating rheumatologists, 78% worked in secondary referral centers, reflecting Dutch rheumatology practice. 52% felt insufficiently skilled to independently assess MRI sacroiliitis. Diagnostic uncertainty was higher for nr-axSpA (23%) than r-axSpA (10%). ASAS classification criteria were used to diagnose nr- and r-axSpA by 54% and 36% of rheumatologists. For monitoring disease activity, ASDAS was always or never used by 28% and 26% of rheumatologists. In treatment decisions concerning biological DMARDs, the level of pain was considered equally important as disease activity scores (ASDAS, BASDAI). Most rheumatologists (60%) did not use ASDAS or BASDAI cut-off scores or change to evaluate biological DMARDs' effectiveness.
conclusionsThis study reveals that Dutch rheumatologists experienced difficulties in diagnosing axSpA in one out of four patients. ASAS classification criteria were often used for support, particularly in diagnosing nr-axSpA. The use of disease-activity assessments during monitoring was limited. Key Points •Diagnostic uncertainty remains common in daily practice, particularly for non-radiographic axial spondyloarthritis. •Although ASAS classification criteria were developed for research purposes, they are also used to support diagnosis. •ASDAS is used inconsistently to monitor disease activity and many rheumatologists seem to base treatment decisions on reported pain level. •There seems to be a gap between axial spondyloarthritis international management recommendations and routine rheumatology care.
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.