Advertisement

Clinical Rheumatology

, Volume 35, Issue 7, pp 1777–1787 | Cite as

Construct validity of clinical spinal mobility tests in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

  • Marcelo P. CastroEmail author
  • Simon M. Stebbings
  • Stephan Milosavljevic
  • Melanie D. Bussey
Original Article

Abstract

The study aimed to determine, using systematic review and meta-analysis, the level of evidence supporting the construct validity of spinal mobility tests for assessing patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Following the guidelines proposed in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, three sets of keywords were used for data searching: (i) ankylosing spondylitis, spondyloarthritis, spondyloarthropathy, spondylarthritis; (ii) accuracy, association, construct, correlation, Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials, OMERACT, truth, validity; (iii) mobility, Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index—BASMI, radiography, spinal measures, cervical rotation, Schober (a further 19 keywords were used). Initially, 2558 records were identified, and from these, 21 studies were retained. Fourteen of these studies were considered high level of evidence. Compound indexes of spinal mobility showed mostly substantial to excellent levels of agreement with global structural damage. Individual mobility tests for the cervico-thoracic spine showed only moderate agreements with cervical structural damage, and considering structural damage at the lumbar spine, the original Schober was the only test that presented consistently substantial levels of agreement. Three studies assessed the construct validity of mobility measures for inflammation and low to fair levels of agreement were observed. Two meta-analyses were conducted, with assessment of agreement between BASMI and two radiological indexes of global structural damage. The spinal mobility indexes and the original Schober test show acceptable construct validity for inferring the extent of structural damage when assessing patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Spinal mobility measures do not reflect levels of inflammation at either the sacroiliac joints and/or the spine.

Keywords

Ankylosing spondylitis Construct validity Meta-analysis Spinal inflammation Spinal mobility Spondyloarthritis Structural damage 

Notes

Disclosures

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Dean LE, Jones GT, MacDonald AG, Downham C, Sturrock RD, Macfarlane GJ (2014) Global prevalence of ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology 53:650–657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    van der Linden S, Valkenburg H, Cats A (1984) Evaluation of diagnostic criteria for ankylosing spondylitis. A proposal for modification of the New York criteria. Arthritis Rheum 27:361–368CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett AN, McGonagle D, O’Connor P et al (2008) Severity of baseline magnetic resonance imaging-evident sacroiliitis and HLA-B27 status in early inflammatory back pain predict radiographically evident ankylosing spondylitis at eight years. Arthritis Rheum 58:3413–3418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Oostveen J, Prevo R, den Boer J, van de Laar M (1999) Early detection of sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging and subsequent development of sacroiliitis on plain radiography. A prospective, longitudinal study. J Rheumatol 26:1953–1958PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rudwaleit M, Jurik AG, Hermann K-GA et al (2009) Defining active sacroiliitis on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for classification of axial spondyloarthritis: a consensual approach by the ASAS/OMERACT MRI group. Ann Rheum Dis 68:1520–1527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Landewé R et al (2009) The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part II): validation and final selection. Ann Rheum Dis 68:777–783CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rudwaleit M, Landewé R, van der Heijde D et al (2009) The development of Assessment of SpondyloArthritis international Society classification criteria for axial spondyloarthritis (part I): classification of paper patients by expert opinion including uncertainty appraisal. Ann Rheum Dis 68:770–776CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bakland G, Nossent H (2013) Epidemiology of Spondyloarthritis: a review. Curr Rheumatol Rep 15:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Der Heijde D, Calin A, Dougados M, Khan MA, Van Der Linden S, Bellamy N (1999) Selection of instruments in the core set for DC-ART, SMARD, physical therapy, and clinical record keeping in ankylosing spondylitis. Progress report of the ASAS Working Group. J Rheumatol 26:951–954PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brandt J, Listing J, Sieper J, Rudwaleit M, van der Heijde D, Braun J (2004) Development and preselection of criteria for short term improvement after anti-TNF alpha treatment in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 63:1438–1444CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Davis JC, Gladman DD (2007) Spinal mobility measures in spondyloarthritis: application of the OMERACT filter. J Rheumatol 34:666–670PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Portney LG, Watkins MP (2009) Foundations of clinical research: applications to practice, 3rd edn. Pearson & Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Castro MP, Stebbings SM, Milosavljevic S, Bussey M (2015) Criterion-concurrent validity of spinal mobility tests in ankylosing spondylitis: a systematic review of the literature. J Rheumatol 42:243–251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jenkinson T, Mallorie P, Whitelock H, Kennedy L, Garrett S, Calin A (1994) Defining spinal mobility in ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The Bath AS Metrology Index. J Rheumatol 21:1694–1698PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maksymowych WP, Mallon C, Richardson R et al (2006) Development and validation of the Edmonton Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index. Arthritis Care Res 55:575–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P et al (2011) The 2011 Oxford CEBM Evidence Levels of Evidence (Introductory Document)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Garrido-Castro JL, Escudero A, Medina-Carnicer R et al (2014) Validation of a new objective index to measure spinal mobility: the University of Cordoba Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (UCOASMI). Rheumatol Int 34:401–406CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dale K, Vinje O (1985) Radiography of the spine and sacro-iliac joints in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriasis. Acta Radiol Diagn 26:145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    MacKay K, Mack C, Brophy S, Calin A (1998) The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index (BASRI): a new, validated approach to disease assessment. Arthritis Rheum 41:2263–2270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Taylor HG, Wardle T, Beswick EJ, Dawes PT (1991) The relationship of clinical and laboratory measurements to radiological change in ankylosing spondylitis. Rheumatology 30:330–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Creemers MC, Franssen MJ, van ’t Hof MA, Gribnau FW, van de Putte LB, van Riel PL (1993) A radiographic scoring system and identification of variables measuring structural damage in ankylosing spondylitis. University of Nijmegen, NijmegenGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Braun J, Baraliakos X, Golder W et al (2003) Magnetic resonance imaging examinations of the spine in patients with ankylosing spondylitis, before and after successful therapy with infliximab: evaluation of a new scoring system. Arthritis Rheum 48:1126–1136CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lukas C, Braun J, van der Heijde D et al (2007) Scoring inflammatory activity of the spine by magnetic resonance imaging in ankylosing spondylitis: a multireader experiment. J Rheumatol 34:862–870PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151:264–269CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Whiting P, Rutjes A, Reitsma J, Bossuyt P, Kleijnen J (2003) The development of QUADAS: a tool for the quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 3:25CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cho H, Kim T, Kim TH, Lee S, Lee KH (2013) Spinal mobility, vertebral squaring, pulmonary function, pain, fatigue, and quality of life in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rehabil Med 37:675–682CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Konca S, Keskin D, Ciliz D, Bodur H, Sakman B (2012) Spinal inflammation by magnetic resonance imaging in patients with ankylosing spondylitis: association with disease activity and outcome parameters. Rheumatol Int 32:3765–3770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yacoub YI, Amine B, Laatiris A, Abouqal R, Hajjaj-Hassouni N (2011) Spinal mobility and its impact in Moroccan patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol 30:239–243CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Machado P, Landewe R, Braun J, Hermann KG, Baker D, van der Heijde D (2010) Both structural damage and inflammation of the spine contribute to impairment of spinal mobility in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 69:1465–1470CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rudwaleit M, Schwarzlose S, Hilgert ES, Listing J, Braun J, Sieper J (2008) MRI in predicting a major clinical response to anti-tumour necrosis factor treatment in ankylosing spondylitis. Ann Rheum Dis 67:1276–1281CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Salaffi F, Carotti M, Garofalo G, Giuseppetti GM, Grassi W (2007) Radiological scoring methods for ankylosing spondylitis: a comparison between the Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Radiology Index and the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spine Score. Clin Exp Rheumatol 25:67–74PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chandran V, O’Shea FD, Schentag CT, Inman RD, Gladman DD (2007) Relationship between spinal mobility and radiographic damage in ankylosing spondylitis and psoriatic spondylitis: a comparative analysis. J Rheumatol 34:2463–2465PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kaya T, Gelal F, Gunaydin R (2006) The relationship between severity and extent of spinal involvement and spinal mobility and physical functioning in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Clin Rheumatol 25:835–839CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wanders A, Landewe R, Dougados M, Mielants H, van der Linden S, van der Heijde D (2005) Association between radiographic damage of the spine and spinal mobility for individual patients with ankylosing spondylitis: can assessment of spinal mobility be a proxy for radiographic evaluation? Ann Rheum Dis 64:988–994CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Baraliakos X, Listing J, Rudwaleit M, Brandt J, Sieper J, Braun J (2005) Radiographic progression in patients with ankylosing spondylitis after 2 years of treatment with the tumour necrosis factor a antibody infliximab. Ann Rheum Dis 64:1462–1466CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wanders AJB, Landewé RBM, Spoorenberg A et al (2004) What is the most appropriate radiologic scoring method for ankylosing spondylitis? Arthritis Rheum 50:2622–2632CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ozgocmen S, Ardicoglu O, Kaya A (2000) The relationship of clinical and laboratory measurements to two different radiological scoring methods in ankylosing spondylitis. J Back Musculoskelet Rehabil 15:37–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Viitanen JV, Heikkila S, Kokko ML, Kautiainen H (2000) Clinical assessment of spinal mobility measurements in ankylosing spondylitis: a compact set for follow-up and trials? Clin Rheumatol 19:131–137CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Viitanen JV, Kokko ML, Heikkila S, Kautiainen H (1998) Neck mobility assessment in ankylosing spondylitis: a clinical study of nine measurements including new tape methods for cervical rotation and lateral flexion. Br J Rheumatol 37:377–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Viitanen JV, Kokko ML, Heikkila S, Kautiainen H (1999) Assessment of thoracolumbar rotation in ankylosing spondylitis: a simple tape method. Clin Rheumatol 18:152–157CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Viitanen JV, Kautiainen H, Suni J, Kokko ML, Lehtinen K (1995) The relative value of spinal and thoracic mobility measurements in ankylosing spondylitis. Scand J Rheumatol 24:94–97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Viitanen JV, Kokko ML, Lehtinen K, Suni J, Kautiainen H (1995) Correlation between mobility restrictions and radiologic changes in ankylosing spondylitis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 20:492–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Kennedy LG, Jenkinson TR, Mallorie PA, Whitelock HC, Garrett SL, Calin A (1995) Ankylosing spondylitis: the correlation between a new metrology score and radiology. Br J Rheumatol 34:767–770CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Viitanen JV (1993) Thoracolumbar rotation in ankylosing spondylitis: a new noninvasive measurement method. Spine 18:880–883CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Williams R, Goldsmith C, Minuk T (1998) Validity of the double inclinometer method for measuring lumbar flexion. Physiother Can 50:147–152Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Batti’e MC, Bigos SJ, Sheehy A, Wortley MD (1987) Spinal flexibility and individual factors that influence it. Phys Ther 67:653–658PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Cook CE, Wilhelm M, Cook AE, Petrosino C, Isaacs R (2011) Clinical tests for screening and diagnosis of cervical spine myelopathy: a systematic review. J Manip Physiol Ther 34:539–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rezvani A, Ergin O, Karacan I, Oncu M (2012) Validity and reliability of the metric measurements in the assessment of lumbar spine motion in patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Spine 37:1189–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise ScienceUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  2. 2.Department of Medicine, Dunedin School of MedicineUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand
  3. 3.School of Physical TherapyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations