We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
EVALUATION STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
ASAS modification of the Berlin algorithm for diagnosing axial spondyloarthritis: results from the SPondyloArthritis Caught Early (SPACE)-cohort and from the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS)-cohort.
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases 2013 October
OBJECTIVE: To compare the original Berlin algorithm for diagnosing axial Spondyloarthritis (axSpA) with two modifications in the SPondyloArthritis Caught Early (SPACE)-cohort and the Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society (ASAS) axSpA criteria validation (ASAS)-cohort.
METHODS: Patients in the SPACE-cohort (back pain ≥3 months, ≤2 years, onset <45 years) and the ASAS-cohort (undiagnosed chronic back pain) were diagnosed according to three algorithms: original (inflammatory back pain (IBP) mandatory), modification 1 (IBP defined by ≥3/5 IBP-features instead of ≥4/5) and modification 2 (IBP deleted as obligatory entry criterion, added as SpA-feature). Diagnosis by rheumatologist, ASAS axSpA criteria and likelihood ratio product were used as external standards to test the performance of the algorithms.
RESULTS: SPACE-cohort: Compared to the diagnosis by rheumatologist (either axSpA or no-axSpA), the original algorithm agreed in 120 patients (76.4%). Agreement decreased using modification 1 (119 patients; 75.8%), increased using modification 2 (125 patients; 79.6%). Sensitivity increased from 66.2% (original) to 72.3% (modification 1) and 78.5% (modification 2). Specificity decreased more using modification 1 (83.7% to 78.3%) than when using modification 2 (83.7% to 79.6%). ASAS-cohort: Compared to the diagnosis by rheumatologist (either axSpA or no-axSpA), the original algorithm agreed in 484 patients (70.7%). Agreement increased using modification 1 (520 patients; 75.9%) and modification 2 (548 patients; 80.0%). Sensitivity increased from 65.3% (original) to 77.9% (modification 1) and 79.6% (modification 2). Specificity decreased more using modification 1 (79.2% to 72.2%) than when using modification 2 (79.2% to 75.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: ASAS accepted a modified algorithm for diagnosing axSpA in which IBP is excluded as obligatory entry criterion and added as SpA-feature.
METHODS: Patients in the SPACE-cohort (back pain ≥3 months, ≤2 years, onset <45 years) and the ASAS-cohort (undiagnosed chronic back pain) were diagnosed according to three algorithms: original (inflammatory back pain (IBP) mandatory), modification 1 (IBP defined by ≥3/5 IBP-features instead of ≥4/5) and modification 2 (IBP deleted as obligatory entry criterion, added as SpA-feature). Diagnosis by rheumatologist, ASAS axSpA criteria and likelihood ratio product were used as external standards to test the performance of the algorithms.
RESULTS: SPACE-cohort: Compared to the diagnosis by rheumatologist (either axSpA or no-axSpA), the original algorithm agreed in 120 patients (76.4%). Agreement decreased using modification 1 (119 patients; 75.8%), increased using modification 2 (125 patients; 79.6%). Sensitivity increased from 66.2% (original) to 72.3% (modification 1) and 78.5% (modification 2). Specificity decreased more using modification 1 (83.7% to 78.3%) than when using modification 2 (83.7% to 79.6%). ASAS-cohort: Compared to the diagnosis by rheumatologist (either axSpA or no-axSpA), the original algorithm agreed in 484 patients (70.7%). Agreement increased using modification 1 (520 patients; 75.9%) and modification 2 (548 patients; 80.0%). Sensitivity increased from 65.3% (original) to 77.9% (modification 1) and 79.6% (modification 2). Specificity decreased more using modification 1 (79.2% to 72.2%) than when using modification 2 (79.2% to 75.6%).
CONCLUSIONS: ASAS accepted a modified algorithm for diagnosing axSpA in which IBP is excluded as obligatory entry criterion and added as SpA-feature.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices 
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app