Criterion-concurrent Validity of Spinal Mobility Tests in Ankylosing Spondylitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the level of evidence for criterion-concurrent validity of spinal mobility assessments in patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS). METHODS: Guidelines proposed in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used to undertake a search strategy involving 3 sets of keywords: accura*, truth, valid*; ankylosing spondylitis, spondyloarthritis, spondyloarthropathy, spondylarthritis; mobility, spinal measure*, (a further 16 keywords with similar meaning were used). Seven databases were searched from their inception to February 2014: AMED, Embase, ProQuest, PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, and Web of Science. The Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (with modifications) was used to assess the quality of articles reviewed. An article was considered high quality when it received "yes" in at least 9 of the 13 items. RESULTS: From the 741 records initially identified, 10 articles were retained for our systematic review. Only 1 article was classified as high quality, and this article suggests that 3 variants of the Schober test (original, modified, and modified-modified) poorly reflect lumbar range of motion where radiographs were used as the reference standard. CONCLUSION: The level of evidence considering criterion-concurrent validity of clinical tests used to assess spinal mobility in patients with AS is low. Clinicians should be aware that current practice when measuring spinal mobility in AS may not accurately reflect true spinal mobility.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.069 | 0.256 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".