4.5 Article

Inter-rater reliability of clinical mobility measures in ankylosing spondylitis

Journal

BMC MUSCULOSKELETAL DISORDERS
Volume 17, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BIOMED CENTRAL LTD
DOI: 10.1186/s12891-016-1242-1

Keywords

Ankylosing spondylitis; Reliability; Reproducibility; Smallest detectable difference; BASMI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Several measurements are often used in daily clinical practice in the assessment of Ankylosing Spondylitis (AS) patients. The Assessment in SpondyloArthiritis International Society (ASAS) recommend in its core set: chest expansion modified Schober test, Occiput to wall distance, lateral lumbar flexion, cervical rotation and The Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Metrology Index (BASMI). BASMI also includes five measurements, some of them recommended by ASAS. Three versions of BASMI have been published with different scales and intervals for each component of the index. Though studies about reliability of these measurements are needed. The aim of this study was to analyze inter-rater reliability of recommended spinal mobility measures in AS. Methods: We examined reproducibility of spinal mobility measurements on 33 AS patients performed by two experienced rheumatologists in the same day. Descriptive statistics, Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), and Smallest Detectable Difference (SDD) using the Bland-Altman criteria were obtained for all the measurements. Results: Chest expansion showed the lowest value of ICC (0.66) and occiput-wall the highest (0.97). SDD was 2.43 units for BASMI2 and 1.27 units for BASMI10. Conclusions: Reliability according to ICC was moderate to high in all measurements. BASMI10, instead BASMI2, must be used: measurements used to calculate are the same but there is better reliability. Inter-rater variation, expressed as SDD, must be taken in account: smaller improvements do not demonstrate the efficacy of treatment because they can be due to experimental error and not to the treatment itself.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available