umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Scoring of radiographic progression in randomised clinical trials in ankylosing spondylitis: a preference for paired reading order
Show others and affiliations
2004 (English)In: Ann Rheum Dis, Vol. 63, no 12, 1601-4 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVES: To describe the influence of the reading order (chronological v paired) on radiographic scoring results in ankylosing spondylitis. To investigate whether this method is sufficiently sensitive to change because paired reading is requested for establishing drug efficacy in clinical trials. METHODS: Films obtained from 166 patients (at baseline, 1 year, and 2 years) were scored by one observer, using the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score. Films were first scored chronologically, and were scored paired 6 months later. RESULTS: Chronological reading showed significantly more progression than paired reading both at 1 year (mean (SD) progression 1.3 (2.6) v 0.5 (2.4) units) and at 2 years (2.1 (3.9) v 1.0 (2.9) units); between-method difference: p<0.001 at 1 year, and p<0.001 at 2 years. After 1 year, progression (>0 units) was found in 35/166 (21%) patients after paired reading and in 55/166 (33%) after chronological reading. After 2 years, these figures were 50/166 (30%) and 68/166 (41%), respectively. Sample size calculations showed that 94 patients in each treatment arm are required in a randomised clinical trial (RCT) to provide sufficient statistical power to detect a difference in 2 year progression if films are scored paired. CONCLUSION: Reading with chronological time order is more sensitive to change than reading with paired time order, but paired reading is sufficiently sensitive to pick up change with a follow up of 2 years, resulting in an acceptable sample size for RCTs.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2004. Vol. 63, no 12, 1601-4 p.
Keyword [en]
Adult, Chronology as Topic, Disease Progression, Epidemiologic Methods, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/*methods, Reproducibility of Results, Research Design, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Spondylitis, Ankylosing/drug therapy/*radiography, Time Factors, Treatment Outcome
National Category
Basic Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-110945ISBN: 0003-4967 (Print) 0003-4967 (Linking) OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-110945DiVA: diva2:865831
Note

Wanders, A Landewe, R Spoorenberg, A de Vlam, K Mielants, H Dougados, M van der Linden, S van der Heijde, D eng Multicenter Study England 2004/08/07 05:00 Ann Rheum Dis. 2004 Dec;63(12):1601-4. Epub 2004 Aug 5.

Available from: 2015-10-29 Created: 2015-10-29 Last updated: 2015-10-29

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15297280

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Wanders, A.
Basic Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Total: 44 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf