2014 Update of the Canadian Rheumatology Association/Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada Treatment Recommendations for the Management of Spondyloarthritis. Part II: Specific Management Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Rheumatology Association (CRA) and the Spondyloarthritis Research Consortium of Canada (SPARCC) have collaborated to update the recommendations for the management of spondyloarthritis (SpA). METHODS: A working group was assembled and consisted of the SPARCC executive committee, rheumatologist leaders from SPARCC collaborating sites, Canadian rheumatologists from across the country with an interest in SpA (both academic and community), a rheumatology trainee with an interest in SpA, an epidemiologist/health services researcher, a member of the CRA executive, a member of the CRA therapeutics committee, and a patient representative from the Canadian Spondylitis Association. An extensive review was conducted of literature published from 2007 to 2014 involving the management of SpA. The working group created draft recommendations using multiple rounds of Web-based surveys and an in-person conference. RESULTS: Recommendations for the management of SpA were created. Part II: Specific Management Recommendations addresses management with nonpharmacologic methods, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories and analgesics, disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, antibiotics, tumor necrosis factor inhibitors, other biologic agents, and surgery. Also included are 10 modifications for application to juvenile SpA. CONCLUSION: These recommendations were developed based on current literature and applied to a Canadian healthcare context. It is hoped that implementation of these recommendations will promote best practices in the treatment of SpA.
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 | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".