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.
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.
Authors: A Spoorenberg; D van der Heijde; E de Klerk; M Dougados; K de Vlam; H Mielants; H van der Tempel; S van der Linden Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: P E Lipsky; D M van der Heijde; E W St Clair; D E Furst; F C Breedveld; J R Kalden; J S Smolen; M Weisman; P Emery; M Feldmann; G R Harriman; R N Maini Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2000-11-30 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Karin Bruynesteyn; Désirée Van Der Heijde; Maarten Boers; Ariane Saudan; Paul Peloso; Harold Paulus; Harry Houben; Bridget Griffiths; John Edmonds; Barry Bresnihan; Annelies Boonen; Sjef Van Der Linden Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2002-11 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: R Ferrara; F Priolo; M Cammisa; L Bacarini; A Cerase; G Pasero; G F Ferraccioli; O D Alberighi; A Antonellini; E Marubini Journal: Ann Rheum Dis Date: 1997-10 Impact factor: 19.103
Authors: Astrid J B Wanders; Robert B M Landewé; Anneke Spoorenberg; Maxime Dougados; Sjef van der Linden; Herman Mielants; Hille van der Tempel; Désirée M F M van der Heijde Journal: Arthritis Rheum Date: 2004-08
Authors: Anneke Spoorenberg; Kurt de Vlam; Sjef van der Linden; Maxime Dougados; Herman Mielants; Hille van de Tempel; Désirée van der Heijde Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: J Braun; J Zochling; E Märker-Hermann; G Stucki; H Böhm; M Rudwaleit; H Zeidler; J Sieper Journal: Z Rheumatol Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 1.372
Authors: Sofia Ramiro; Astrid van Tubergen; Carmen Stolwijk; Robert Landewé; Filip van de Bosch; Maxime Dougados; Désirée van der Heijde Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2013-01-17 Impact factor: 5.156