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: 1122

How Reliable Is The Scoring Of Msasss In Clinical Practice In Centers Participating In DESIR? Comparison With The Gold Standard Central Reading

Pascal Claudepierre1, Manouk de Hooge2, Antoine Feydy3, Monique Reijnierse4, Alain Saraux5, Maxime Dougados6 and Désirée van der Heijde7, 1Rheumatology, Henri Mondor Teaching Hospital, AP-HP, Créteil, France, 2Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands, 3Radiology B, Paris Descartes University, Côchin Hospital, APHP, Paris, France, 4Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands, 5Rhumatologie, CHU de la Cavale Blanche, Brest Cedex, France, 6Rheumatology B Department, Paris-Descartes University, Cochin Hospital, Paris, France, 7Department of Rheumatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Netherlands

Meeting: 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

Keywords: performance, spondylarthritis and x-ray

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

Title: Imaging of Rheumatic Diseases II: Imaging in Spondyloarthritis and Osteoarthritis

Session Type: Abstract Submissions (ACR)

Background/Purpose: Spinal X-rays are considered as gold standard for assessing structural damage in the spine in AS, and a scoring system, the modified Stoke Ankylosing Spondylitis Spinal Score (mSASSS) is the preferred assessment method. In clinical studies and therapeutic trials, the mSASSS scoring process is usually done by ≥1 trained readers. In daily practice, the ability of rheumatologists and radiologists to adequately use the mSASSS without a specific training is unknown. In addition, it is not known what the impact would be in studies when using the score of multiple readers in various centres as in daily practice, instead of using a centralized scoring with a few trained readers. Therefore we want to compare the results of the mSASSS of the local reading of baseline spinal X-Rays to the centralized reading as the gold standard.

Methods: Patients aged 18-50 with recent chronic back pain (≥3 months, ≤3 years) from 25 participating centers in France were included in the DESIR (Devenir des Spondylarthropathies Indifferenciées Récentes) -cohort (n=708). All available baseline X-rays of cervical and lumbar spine were scored by the local radiologist/rheumatologist who might have access to clinical data, according to the mSASSS scoring method. In addition, 2 well-calibrated centralized readers independently scored the same X-rays, blinded for any other data. In case the centralized readers disagreed, an experienced radiologist served as adjudicator. Agreement between the 2 centralized readers, and between the local and centralized scores was calculated (Kappa; percentage agreement). To calculate the agreement between readers a cut-off of ≥1 for mSASSS was used. When comparing centralized readers with local readers the mSASSS of the centralized readers was combined.

Results: Patients with complete X- ray data (n=664) were included in these analyses. The large majority of patients had a normal mSASSS both scored by the central and local readers. The agreement between the 2 centralized readers was 89.3% with a kappa of 0.50 (see table). Comparing the local readings with the centralized scores there was an agreement in 72.2% of the cases with a kappa of 0.19. The local readers scored an mSASSS ≥1 in 169 cases, while this was in 119 cases if scored by central readers.

Conclusion: The agreement between two trained central readers is better than between central and local readers. Local readers overestimate damage in the spine in comparison to the gold standard of central reading.

 

 

Reader 2

Reader 1

 

mSASSS ≥1

mSASSS <1

mSASSS ≥1

45

29

mSASSS <1

42

548

 

Kappa = 0.50 / Agreement = 89.3%

 

 

Centralized score (2/3)

Local score

 

mSASSS ≥1

mSASSS <1

mSASSS ≥1

52

117

mSASSS <1

67

427

 

Kappa = 0.19 / Agreement = 72.2%


Disclosure:

P. Claudepierre,
None;

M. de Hooge,
None;

A. Feydy,
None;

M. Reijnierse,
None;

A. Saraux,
None;

M. Dougados,
None;

D. van der Heijde,
None.

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

« Back to 2013 ACR/ARHP Annual Meeting

ACR Meeting Abstracts - https://acrabstracts.org/abstract/how-reliable-is-the-scoring-of-msasss-in-clinical-practice-in-centers-participating-in-desir-comparison-with-the-gold-standard-central-reading/

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