ReviewEULAR rheumatology open2026
Rethinking imaging in axial spondyloarthritis: toward diagnostic maturity.
Review in EULAR rheumatology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Imaging, particularly magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans of the sacroiliac joints, has become central in the evaluation of axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA), partly due to the absence of reliable biomarkers and variable human leukocyte antigen B27 (HLA-B27) prevalence. However, its increasing use as a standalone diagnostic tool represents a conceptual shift that risks undermining clinical reasoning. This viewpoint critically examined the specificity and limitations of imaging findings and highlighted that lesions such as bone marrow oedema and structural changes may also occur in non-SpA populations, including healthy individuals and those with mechanical back pain. Misinterpretation, rather than intrinsic imaging limitations, is a major driver of diagnostic error. In this viewpoint it is argued that imaging should serve a supportive and prognostic role, integrated within a broader clinical framework that includes patient history, clinical features, and laboratory data. Overreliance on imaging contributes to diagnostic inflation, particularly in non-adiographic and atypical populations, with implications for patient care and healthcare systems. Emerging tools such as artificial intelligence may amplify these challenges if not carefully validated. Recentring clinical reasoning, promoting multidisciplinary collaboration, and ensuring imaging is requested and interpreted within an appropriate clinical context are essential steps forward. Ultimately, imaging should inform but not replace clinical judgement in the diagnosis of axSpA.
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.