Castro Marcelo P, Stebbings Simon M, Milosavljevic Stephan, Bussey Melanie D
School of Physical Education, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Otago, 46 Union St West, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Department of Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Clin Rheumatol. 2016 Jul;35(7):1777-87. doi: 10.1007/s10067-015-3056-1. Epub 2015 Sep 4.
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.
本研究旨在通过系统评价和荟萃分析,确定支持脊柱活动度测试对强直性脊柱炎患者结构效度的证据水平。按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目中提出的指南,使用了三组关键词进行数据检索:(i)强直性脊柱炎、脊柱关节炎、脊柱关节病、脊柱关节炎;(ii)准确性、关联性、结构、相关性、类风湿关节炎临床试验中的结果测量、OMERACT、真实性、效度;(iii)活动度、巴斯强直性脊柱炎测量指数-BASMI、放射学、脊柱测量、颈椎旋转、肖伯(还使用了另外19个关键词)。最初,识别出2558条记录,从中保留了21项研究。其中14项研究被认为证据水平高。脊柱活动度的复合指标大多与整体结构损伤显示出高度到极好的一致性水平。针对颈胸椎的个体活动度测试与颈椎结构损伤仅显示出中等一致性,而考虑腰椎的结构损伤时,原始的肖伯测试是唯一始终显示出高度一致性水平的测试。三项研究评估了活动度测量对炎症的结构效度,观察到一致性水平较低到中等。进行了两项荟萃分析,评估了BASMI与两个整体结构损伤放射学指标之间的一致性。脊柱活动度指标和原始的肖伯测试在评估强直性脊柱炎患者时,对于推断结构损伤程度显示出可接受的结构效度。脊柱活动度测量不能反映骶髂关节和/或脊柱的炎症水平。