ACR Meeting Abstracts

ACR Meeting Abstracts

  • Meetings
    • ACR Convergence 2024
    • ACR Convergence 2023
    • 2023 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • ACR Convergence 2022
    • ACR Convergence 2021
    • ACR Convergence 2020
    • 2020 ACR/ARP PRSYM
    • 2019 ACR/ARP Annual Meeting
    • 2018-2009 Meetings
    • Download Abstracts
  • Keyword Index
  • Advanced Search
  • Your Favorites
    • Favorites
    • Login
    • View and print all favorites
    • Clear all your favorites
  • ACR Meetings

Abstract Number: 2219

Comparing the Construct Validity Among Measures of Pain and Stiffness in Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis

Dafne Capelusnik1, Elena Nikiphorou2, Annelies Boonen3, Désirée van der Heijde4, Robert BM Landewé5, Astrid van Tubergen6 and Sofia Ramiro4, 1Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center, Tel Aviv, Israel, 2King's College London, London, United Kingdom, 3Care and Public Health Research Institute (Caphri), Maastricht University, Maastricht, Netherlands, 4Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands, 5Amsterdam Rheumatology & Clinical Immunology Center, Amsterdam and Zuyderland MC, Herleen, Netherlands, 6Department of Internal Medicine, Division of Rheumatology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, Netherlands

Meeting: ACR Convergence 2023

Keywords: Ankylosing spondylitis (AS), OMERACT, Outcome measures, pain, spondyloarthritis

  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print
Session Information

Date: Tuesday, November 14, 2023

Title: (2195–2226) Spondyloarthritis Including Psoriatic Arthritis – Diagnosis, Manifestations, & Outcomes Poster III: SpA

Session Type: Poster Session C

Session Time: 9:00AM-11:00AM

Background/Purpose: In the context of the recent update of the ASAS core outcomes set (COS), the preferred comparative validity of the measurement instruments to assess the domains ‘Pain’ and ‘Stiffness’ has been questioned as for each domain responsiveness of instruments was comparable. Group discrimination across various external constructs can help provide useful insights and represents unmet need.

Our objective was to compare the group discriminatory capacity, as part of the construct validity, of three instruments to assess pain and three questions of morning stiffness.

Methods: Data from the 8-year visit of patients with axSpA from the multinational OASIS cohort was assessed. The available instruments for pain assessment were: i) total spinal pain, ii) spinal pain at night, iii) spinal pain from BASDAI Q2 (addressing neck, back or hip pain); and for morning stiffness: i) severity of morning stiffness (BASDAI Q5), ii) duration of morning stiffness (BASDAI Q6), iii) the combined score between severity and duration of morning stiffness (average BASDAI Q5/6). Data from 8 year-visit were used as the first time-point where all the instruments were obtained on a 0–10 numeric rating scale (as currently used). The discriminatory capacity was assessed through the standardised mean difference (SMD) that is calculated as the difference of the group means divided by the pooled SD of the group means, with a higher value reflecting a higher discriminatory capacity. The external constructs used to compare the ability to discriminate between subgroups of patients were: ASDAS, BASDAI (dichotomized into inactive/active disease), PGA, PhGA, fatigue, BASFI, BASMI and mSASSS (dichotomized by the median).

Results: 98 patients were included: 71% males, mean age 54 (SD 11), with a mean symptom duration of 31 (11) years. The mean scores for pain were 3.7 (2.3), 2.9 (2.3) and 4.6 (2.6) for spinal pain, spinal pain at night and BASDAI Q2, respectively. The mean scores of morning stiffness were 3.7 (2.6), 3.3 (3.1) and 3.5 (2.7) for BASDAI Q5, Q6 and Q5/6, respectively. Spinal pain by BASDAI Q2 and total spinal pain had higher SMDs compared to spinal night pain across all group comparisons, with spinal pain BASDAI Q2 performing mostly slightly better (Table). Regarding morning stiffness, the severity question (BASDAI Q5) had consistently higher SMDs across all the clinical external constructs, while duration of morning stiffness (BASDAI Q6) performed worse.

Conclusion: Spinal pain from BASDAI Q2 and severity of morning stiffness (BASDAI Q5) are, respectively, the pain and morning stiffness instruments that best discriminate subgroups of patients classified according to disease activity, functional ability, fatigue or spinal mobility. The recommended ASAS COS pain instrument spinal pain BASDAI Q2, was confirmed to discriminate best. In the case of stiffness, the ASAS COS stiffness measure (BASDAI Q5/6) performed well although slightly less than the severity of morning stiffness (BASDAI Q5).

Supporting image 1


Disclosures: D. Capelusnik: None; E. Nikiphorou: AbbVie/Abbott, 6, Celltrion, 6, Eli Lilly, 6, fresenius, 6, Galapagos, 6, Gilead, 1, 6, Pfizer, 6, Sanofi, 6; A. Boonen: AbbVie, 2, 5, 6, Galapagos, 2, 6, Novartis, 2, 6, Pfizer, 5, 6, UCB Pharma, 2, 6; D. van der Heijde: AbbVie, 2, Bayer, 2, BMS, 2, Eli Lilly, 2, Galapagos, 2, Gilead, 2, GSK, 2, Imaging Rheumatology BV, 12, Director, Janssen, 2, Novartis, 2, Pfizer, 2, Takeda, 2, UCB Pharma, 2; R. Landewé: AbbVie, 2, 5, AstraZeneca, 2, BMS, 2, Eli Lilly, 2, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, Rheumatology Consultancy BV, 12, Owner, UCB Pharma, 2, 5; A. van Tubergen: MSD, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, 6, UCB Pharma, 2, 5; S. Ramiro: AbbVie, 2, 5, Eli Lilly, 2, Galapagos, 5, MSD, 2, 5, Novartis, 2, 5, Pfizer, 2, 5, Sanofi, 2, UCB Pharma, 2, 5.

To cite this abstract in AMA style:

Capelusnik D, Nikiphorou E, Boonen A, van der Heijde D, Landewé R, van Tubergen A, Ramiro S. Comparing the Construct Validity Among Measures of Pain and Stiffness in Patients with Axial Spondyloarthritis [abstract]. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2023; 75 (suppl 9). https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparing-the-construct-validity-among-measures-of-pain-and-stiffness-in-patients-with-axial-spondyloarthritis/. Accessed .
  • Tweet
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window) Email
  • Click to print (Opens in new window) Print

« Back to ACR Convergence 2023

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/comparing-the-construct-validity-among-measures-of-pain-and-stiffness-in-patients-with-axial-spondyloarthritis/

Advanced Search

Your Favorites

You can save and print a list of your favorite abstracts during your browser session by clicking the “Favorite” button at the bottom of any abstract. View your favorites »

All abstracts accepted to ACR Convergence are under media embargo once the ACR has notified presenters of their abstract’s acceptance. They may be presented at other meetings or published as manuscripts after this time but should not be discussed in non-scholarly venues or outlets. The following embargo policies are strictly enforced by the ACR.

Accepted abstracts are made available to the public online in advance of the meeting and are published in a special online supplement of our scientific journal, Arthritis & Rheumatology. Information contained in those abstracts may not be released until the abstracts appear online. In an exception to the media embargo, academic institutions, private organizations, and companies with products whose value may be influenced by information contained in an abstract may issue a press release to coincide with the availability of an ACR abstract on the ACR website. However, the ACR continues to require that information that goes beyond that contained in the abstract (e.g., discussion of the abstract done as part of editorial news coverage) is under media embargo until 10:00 AM ET on November 14, 2024. Journalists with access to embargoed information cannot release articles or editorial news coverage before this time. Editorial news coverage is considered original articles/videos developed by employed journalists to report facts, commentary, and subject matter expert quotes in a narrative form using a variety of sources (e.g., research, announcements, press releases, events, etc.).

Violation of this policy may result in the abstract being withdrawn from the meeting and other measures deemed appropriate. Authors are responsible for notifying colleagues, institutions, communications firms, and all other stakeholders related to the development or promotion of the abstract about this policy. If you have questions about the ACR abstract embargo policy, please contact ACR abstracts staff at [email protected].

Wiley

  • Online Journal
  • Privacy Policy
  • Permissions Policies
  • Cookie Preferences

© Copyright 2025 American College of Rheumatology